Library  of  the  Theological  Seminary 

PRINCETON         »       NEW    JERSEY 


From  the  Library  of 

Professor  Benjamin  Breckinridge  Warfield 

1916 

BS2665  =S855  | 

Stifier,  James  M.  ' 

=      Epistle  to  the  Romans  :  a  commentary  1( 
and  historical  / 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS 


New  and  Cheaper  Edition. 


An  Introduction  to  the  Study  of 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

BY  THB 

REV.  J.  M.  STIFLER,  D.D. 

Professor  of  New  Testament  Exegesis  in  Crozer  Theological 
Seminary, 

Teachers'  Edition,  J2mo,  cloth,  net,  75c. 
(Also  Crown  8vo,  $J.25.) 


*'  The  style  is  unusually  clear,  concise,  and  convincing; 
the  author  combines  reverence  of  spirit  with  originality 
of  apprehension  and  of  statement:  and  one  can  hardly 
read  his  two-page  introduction  witnout  wishing  to  follow 
him  farther.  So  doing,  the  reader  will  discover  that  the 
volume  is  a  distinct  addition  to  the  list  of  American 
works  on  New  Testament  exegesis."-^^^le  Sunday  ScJiool 
Times. 

"We  consider  this  a  miost  valuable  addition  to  the 
Biblical  literature  of  the  day,  and  hope  that  thousands 
of  our  Sunday-school  teachers  will  own  the  volume."— 
The  Golden  Ride. 

"  For  general  readers  we  cannot  speak  too  highly  of 
this  book.  It  marks  the  great  events  of  this  first  period 
subsequent  to  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ  with 
masterly  simplicity  and  good  sense,  and  performs  the 
work  of  such  an  introduction  by  leaving  the  outlines 
and  great  features  of  the  history  strongly  impressed  on 
the  student's  mind."— T/ie  Independent. 

"  There  are  room  and  use  for  such  a  book  as  Professor 
Stifler's.  It  is  phrased  in  simple,  untechnical  terms, 
and  will  be  a  genuine  aid  to  Biblical  students."— r?ie 
Congregatimialist. 

"  So  free  is  he  from  a  controversial  spirit,  that  one 
might  read  the  book  through  without  discovering  the 
ecclesiastical  status  of  the  author."  —  T?t€  Church 
StancUird. 

"Dr.  Stifler  reviews  the  book  with  wary  diligence  and 
wakeful  judgment,  and  tells  what  he  finds  in  it,  and 
what,  in  his  view,  the  author  proposed  to  do."— ITie 
WatyChman.  

Postpaid  on  receipt  of  price. 
Fleming  H.  Rcvell  Company 

New  Yobk:  112  Fifth  Ave.  Chicago:  63  Washington  St» 

TOKOJfTO:  UO  and  142  Yonge  St. 


THE 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS 


H  Commentary 

LOGICAL  AND  HISTORICAL 


BY 

/ 

JAMES  M.  "^STIFLER,  D.D. 

PROFESSOR   OF  NEW   TESTAMENT    EXEGESIS   IN   CROZER    THEOLOGICAL 
SEMINARY,    CHESTER,    PA. 


New  York        Chicago        Toronto 

Fleming  H.  Revell  Company 

Publishers  of  Evangelical  Literature 


Copyright,  1897,  by 
Fleming  H.  Revell  Company 


THE  NEW  YORK  TYPE-SETTING  COMPANY 
THE  CAXTON   PRESS 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Preface ix 


Introduction 


1.  Origin  of  the  Roman  Church. 

2.  Time  and  Place  of  Writing. 

3.  Authenticity  and  Genuineness. 

4.  Occasion  and  Object. 

5.  PecuHarities  of  the  Epistle. 

CHAPTER  I 
The  Outlook 15 

CHAPTER  II 
The  Jews  Equally  Guilty  with  the  Gentiles     .        .        .30 

CHAPTER  III 

The  Argument  on  Sin  Concluded  (Verses  1-20),  and  the 
Second  Main  Division  of  the  Epistle — Righteousness 
— Begun  (Verses  21-31) 45 

CHAPTER  IV 

Righteousness  by  Faith  in  Harmony  with  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures 69 


vi  CONTENTS 


PAGE 

CHAPTER  V 

Justification  by  Faith  Secures  the  Final  Salvation  of 
Believers 87 


CHAPTER  VI 

Justification  by  Faith  does  not  Favor  a  Sinful  Course 
OF  Life 106 


CHAPTER  VII 
The  Law  Cannot  Sanctify 122 

CHAPTER  VIII 

In  Christ  Jesus  a  Godly  Life  is   Insured  by  the  Holy 
Spirit 140 

CHAPTERS   IX-XI 

The  Theodicy— God's  Present  Dealing  with  the  Jews       .  161 

CHAPTER   IX 
Israel's  Rejection  Considered 165 

CHAPTER  X 
Israel's  Failure  their  own  Fault 182 

CHAPTER  XI 
Israel's  Failure  not  Complete 193 

CHAPTER  XII 
Religious  Duties 217 

CHAPTER  XIII 
Civil  Duties  of  Believers 229 


CONTENTS  vii 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  XIV 
Fraternal  Duties  in  Matters  of  Conscience       .        .        .  238 

CHAPTER  XV 

Discussion  of  Fraternal  Duties  Concluded,  and  Personal 
Matters 249 

CHAPTER  XVI 
Love  Within  the  Church 261 


PRiEFACE 


This  book  has  no  other  aim  than  to  make  the  somewhat  difficult  Epis- 
tle to  the  Romans  better  understood — to  report  to  the  reader  what  the 
apostle  has  written.  It  is  not  put  forth  in  the  interest  of  any  theological 
system ;  it  has  no  theory  of  any  kind  to  advocate  and  no  point  to  make, 
except  by  dispassionate  study  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  Paul's  language. 
The  commentator,  even  more  than  the  preacher  of  the  gospel,  is  under 
solemn  obligation  not  to  bear  false  witness  against  the  sacred  penman,  not 
to  misinterpret  him,  not  to  overlay  his  thought  with  personal  views  ;  the 
commentator's  work  is  to  follow  down  the  stream  of  the  inspired  text,  to 
measure  its  width  and  if  possible  its  depth,  but  not  to  dig  new  channels 
for  it  and  not  to  divert  its  flow  to  water  his  own  garden. 

This  book  is  not  a  hasty  product,  but  the  result  of  many  years  of  labor. 
The  author  has  had  the  privilege  and  pleasure  of  guiding  more  than 
twenty  classes  of  theological  students  through  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
fourteen  of  these  using  the  original  text.  The  instruction  has  not  been 
given  by  means  of  lectures  read  or  dictated  by  the  teacher.  Each  word 
and  each  idea  in  the  epistle  have  been  discussed  with  the  class,  every 
member  of  which  had  the  utmost  liberty  to  suggest  his  difficulty,  to  ask 
questions,  to  oppose,  to  deny,  or  to  call  up  the  contrary  view  of  any  com- 
mentator. This  book  is  the  outcome  of  these  years  of  study  and  discus- 
sion. 

While  the  very  words  written  by  the  apostle  have  been  considered  and 
weighed  one  by  one,  the  result  is  not  presented  in  that  form,  nor  with  any 
but  the  very  least  reference  to  the  Greek.  There  is  a  large  class  of  men, 
educated  men,  who,  after  all,  can  read  a  commentary  with  most  satisfaction 
and  profit  in  English.  This  book  is  especially  designed  for  them.  The 
voluminous  works  of  Meyer  and  of  Godet,  even  when  translated,  of  Alford, 
of  Sanday  and  Headlam,  and  of  others,  are  serviceable  only  to  those 
having  a  fair  knowledge  of  Greek.  Of  the  commentaries  that  have  ap- 
peared since  the  Reformation,  Sanday  and  Headlam  enumerate  thirty- 
five,  very  few  of  which  can  be  used  by  any  but  scholars.  They  have  their 
place,  and  are  invaluable  in  the  cloisters  of  the  erudite.  But  accurate  and 
even  expert  knowledge  can  be  conveyed  in  vernacular  speech,  as  is  made 
very  apparent  in  the  excellent  commentaries  of  J.  A.  Beet,  of  H.  G.  C. 
Moule,  of  M.  B.  Riddle,— the  latter  not  included  in  Sanday  and  Headlam's 
list,— and  of  E.  H.  Gifford  in  the  "  Speaker's  Commentary."  There  is 
room  for  more  such,  in  which  dry  and  arbitrary  technicalities  are  not  ex- 

ix 


PREFACE 


hibited,  in  which  only  the  house  appears  and  not  the  tools,  the  noise,  the 
dust,  and  the  process  of  erection.  To  the  commentators  above  mentioned 
and  to  others  the  author  is  indebted,  and  in  the  body  of  this  work  at  the 
appropriate  place  due  credit  has  been  given,  Sanday  and  Headlam  being 
referred  to  by  the  first  of  the  two  names  only.  The  King  James  version 
is  used  as  the  basis  of  this  commentary,  because  it  is  the  one  still  more 
commonly  read,  and  also  because  it  is  less  presumptuous  to  criticize  it  than 
the  other.  But  the  Revised  Version  is  constantly  cited,  and  its  better 
renderings  are  always  given. 

In  preparing  this  book  two  things  have  been  kept  steadily  in  view. 
First,  Paul's  point  of  view.  A  commentary  cannot  be  called  strictly  his- 
torical unless  its  exposition  is  vitally  connected  with  the  thought  of  the 
times  in  which  the  text  was  written.  It  is  the  theologic  current  and  the 
religious  questions  of  Paul's  day,  and  not  those  of  the  present  or  of  any 
other  day,  that  must  furnish  the  key  to  the  epistle.  He  wrote  in  the  face 
of  that  imposing  system  of  biblical  interpretation  that  claimed  Moses  for 
its  foundation,  that  found  defenders  in  every  synagogue  from  Jerusalem 
to  Rome,  and  that  was  sure  that  it  knew  the  way  of  fellowship  with  God. 
The  only  orthodox  people  were  the  sons  of  Israel,  who  must  not  be  judged 
alone  by  their  narrow  Pharisaism ;  they  were  sure  that  by  their  law  they 
were  the  sole  custodians  of  the  truth  of  God.  The  rabbi  was  not  merely 
zealous,  he  was  often  able.  In  every  line  that  Paul  wrote  he  had  Judaism 
in  mind.  The  historic  attitude  of  the  epistle  has  been  one  of  the  guiding 
lines  in  preparing  this  commentary. 

The  other  and  second  point  constantly  aimed  at  is  to  give  the  course  of 
thought  without  a  break.  Commenting  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term  has 
not  been  thought  of,  except  in  so  far  as  it  was  required  to  show  the  logical 
connection.  As  the  language  of  the  epistle  is  so  compact,  not  a  little 
verbal  exposition  was  found  necessary ;  but  it  has  been  sought  to  make  it 
strictly  subsidiary  to  that  which  is  of  prime  importance — the  apostle's  ar- 
gument. He  used  words  not  for  their  sake,  but  for  the  sake  of  what  he 
had  to  say,  and  in  the  latter  sense  they  have  been  studied. 

To  Dr.  Henry  G.  Weston,  who  has  made  the  New  Testament  a  daily 
study  for  more  than  half  a  century,  and  whose  knowledge  of  it  is  as  pro- 
found as  it  is  comprehensive,  I  am  greatly  indebted ;  for  while  he  is  not 
responsible  for  the  views  of  this  commentary,  he  has  kindly  read  the  proof- 
sheets  while  the  book  was  going  through  the  press,  made  suggestions,  and 
permitted  the  use  of  his  name  on  this  page. 

James  M.  Stifler. 

Crozer  Seminary,  Chester,  Pa., 
January,  1897. 


INTRODUCTION 


I.  The  origin  of  the  Roman  church  is  historically  obscure. 
There  is  no  record,  and  little  from  which  a  record  can  be  constructed,  either 
of  the  date  of  its  beginning  or  of  the  agent  or  agents  of  its  founding. 
When  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  was  written  the  church  had  already  a 
world-wide  reputation  (i.  8).  But  little  can  be  inferred  from  this  as  to 
the  length  of  time  which  the  church  had  already  existed.  In  five  years  it 
might  have  become  known  "  throughout  the  whole  world."  The  Thessa- 
lonian  church  in  less  than  a  year  after  Paul's  first  visit  was  widely  known ; 
for  Paul  writes  them  from  Corinth  (a.d.  52  or  53) :  "  In  every  place  your 
faith  to  Godward  is  spread  abroad ;  so  that  we  need  not  to  speak  anything  " 
(i  Thess.  i.  8).  That  the  Roman  church  was  not  much  if  any  older  than 
the  earlier  Gentile  churches  is  probable.  It  was  a  Gentile  church.  It  is 
not  easy  to  conceive  how  such  a  one  could  have  come  into  existence  before 
the  church  in  Antioch  in  Syria  (Acts  xi.  19-21),  many  years  after  Pente- 
cost. And  this  first  Gentile  church  did  not  get  its  authority  to  be  strictly 
such  until  after  the  council  in  Jerusalem  (a.d.  50).  The  matter  and  the 
spirit  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  show  that  the  latter  were  thoroughly 
settled  on  the  question  of  their  right  to  be  just  what  they  were — a  Gentile 
church,  grounded  on  faith  in  Christ.  Now  who  made  them  such?  Who 
was  qualified  to  teach  them  that  in  Christ  there  was  no  distinction  between 
Jew  and  Gentile,  a  doctrine  that  was  not  promulgated  before  Peter's  visit 
to  the  household  of  Cornelius  (Acts  x.),  and  that  did  not  gain  authoritative 
recognition  until  a  "  good  while  "  (Acts  xv.)  afterward?  It  seems  almost 
necessary  to  believe  that  the  Roman  church  was  founded  by  teachers  from 
some  of  the  Gentile  centers,  and  that,  too,  after  such  teachers  had  come 
to  clear  vision  of  the  intent  of  the  gospel  for  Gentiles  as  such,  and  that 
they  could  be  saved  as  Gentiles.  The  Gentile  character  of  the  church  is 
now  pretty  generally  admitted,  and  this  admission  makes  necessary  the 
other,  that  its  founders  must  have  been  men  of  Paul's  way  of  presenting 
the  gospel. 

This  disposes  of  two  theories  in  reference  to  the  establishment  of  the 
gospel  in  the  imperial  city.  First,  it  could  not  have  been  carried  thither 
by  the  "  strangers  of  Rome,  Jews  and  proselytes  "  (Acts  ii.  10),  who 
were  present  at  Pentecost.  How  could  these  men  have  founded  a  Gentile 
church?  The  door  to  the  heathen  was  not  opened  until  years  after  the 
descent  of  the  Spirit.  It  would  be  a  much  better  guess  to  say  that  some 
from  the  household  of  Cornelius  (Acts  x.)  carried  to  Rome  the  news  of  a 
Saviour  for  the  Gentiles. 


xii  INTRODUCTION' 

Again,  there  is  no  reason  for  saying  that  Peter  evangelized  the  Romans. 
He  was  not  the  apostle  to  the  uncircumcision  (Gal.  ii.  7,  8).  The  senti- 
ment that  guided  Paul  in  choosing  his  fields  of  labor  (xv.  20)  precludes  the 
belief  that  Peter  had  been  at  Rome  before  him.  "  It  is  equally  clear," 
says  Dr.  J.  B.  Lightfoot,  "  that  no  other  apostle  was  the  founder."  How 
the  seed  came  to  be  dropped  that  sprang  up  in  this  Roman  church,  or 
from  whose  hands,  remains  in  obscurity ;  but  it  is  safe  to  say  that  it  was 
the  gospel  as  Paul  preached  it  that  gave  the  Romans  their  first  knowledge 
of  Christ.  It  is  equally  safe  to  say  that  that  gospel  could  not  have  been 
preached  until  some  years  after  Pentecost— not  until  it  was  formulated. 
The  "  many  years  "  mentioned  by  Paul  in  xv.  23  need  not  mean  more  than 
eight  or  ten  (see  x\cts  xxiv.  17) ;  and  it  is  difhcult  on  account  of  his  his- 
tory, as  given  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  to  see  how  they  can  embrace  any  more. 
2.  The  time  and  place  of  the  writing  of  the  epistle  are  well  known. 
The  data  are  furnished  in  the  Book  of  Acts  and  in  the  epistle  itself  and  in 
others  written  near  the  same  time.  Paley  ("  Horae  Paulinse")  says  the 
time  and  place  are  found,  "  not  from  the  epistle  nor  from  anything  de- 
clared concerning  the  time  and  place  in  any  part  of  the  epistle,  but  from  a 
comparison  of  circumstances  referred  to  in  the  epistle,  with  the  order  of 
events  recorded  in  the  Acts,  and  with  references  to  the  same  circumstances, 
though  for  quite  different  purposes,  in  the  two  epistles  to  the  Corinthians." 
This  "comparison  of  circumstances"  Paley  draws  out  in  an  argument 
that  is  unanswerable,  not,  indeed,  for  the  actual,  but  for  the  relative  time. 
He  states  his  conclusion  thus:  "We  have  these  circumstances— each  by 
some  hint  in  the  passage  in  which  it  is  mentioned,  or  by  the  date  of  the 
writing  in  which  the  passage  occurs— fixed  to  a  particular  time;  and  we 
have  that  time  turning  out  upon  examination  to  be  in  all  the  same,  namely, 
toward  the  close  of  St.  Paul's  second  visit  to  the  peninsula  of  Greece." 
According  to  the  system  of  chronology  generally  admitted  now  to  be 
correct,  this  "  time"  was  the  early  spring  of  A.D.  58,  and  the  place  was 
'Corinth.  In  this  second  visit  to  Greece,  Paula's  .third  missionary  tour,  he 
'stayed  three  months  at  Corinth  (Acts  xx.  3).  This  must  have  been  in  the 
spring,  for  when  he  was  about  to  leave  navigation  was  possible,  and 
though  he  was  compelled  to  take  the  land  route  to  Jerusalem,  "  through 
Macedonia,"  he  reached  the  latter  country  before  the  Passover  (Acts  xx. 
6),  and  hoped  "  to  be  at  Jerusalem  the  day  of  Pentecost "  (Acts  xx.  16). 
This  gives  us  the  season  of  the  year  to  which  the  writing  of  the  epistle 
belongs,  for  it  was  penned  just  as  he  was  leaving  Corinth,—"  But  now  I 
go  unto  Jerusalem  "  (xv.  25),— in  the  month  of  January  or  February. 

It  is  not  the  intention  to  attempt  to  demonstrate  either  the  problem  of 
time  and  place  or  several  others  belonging  to  this  Introduction.  This 
would  be  simply  to  repeat  what  may  be  found  in  every  Bible  diction- 
ary and  in  the  numerous  recent  introductions  to  the  Pauline  epistles. 
Furthermore,  there  is  little  need  of  proving  what  is  nowhere  seriously 
disputed.  What  Lightfoot  wrote  about  Romans  more  than  a  quarter  of  a 
century  ago  is  undisputed  to-day:  "  The  date  of  this  epistle  is  fixed  with 
more  absolute  certainty  and  within  narrower  limits  than  that  of  any  other 
of  St.  Paul's  epistles"  (Smith's  "Dictionary  of  the  Bible,"  article 
"  Romans").  He  might  have  spoken  with  equal  confidence  about  the 
place. 

3.  The  authenticity  and  genuineness  of  the  epistle  are  both  be- 


INTRODUCTION  xiii 

yond  doubt.  No  book  in  the  New  Testament  is  better  attested.  The  ex- 
ternal testimony  begins  with  Clement  of  Rome  (a.d.  96),  who  is  followed 
by  Ignatius  (a.d.  115),  Polycarp  (a.d.  116),  Marcion  (a.d.  130),  the 
Muratori  canon  (a.d.  170),  and  others,  both  friends  and  foes,  to  the  num- 
ber of  nineteen,  before  the  end  of  the  second  century.  Of  the  beginning 
of  the  same  century  Sanday,  in  the  Introduction  to  his  commentary,  page 
Ixxx.,  section  8,  says:  "Assuming,  then,  as  we  are  entitled  to  do,  that 
the  apostolic  fathers  represent  the  first  quarter  of  the  second  century,  we 
find  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  at  that  time  widely  read,  treated  as  a  stan- 
dard authority  on  apostolic  teaching,  and  taking  its  place  in  a  collection  of 
Pauline  letters."  Neither  the  heretic  Marcion  in  that  ancient  time  nor 
the  rationalist  Baur  in  our  day  has  been  able  to  deny  that  Paul  wrote  this 
epistle,  and  that  we  possess  in  its  present  form  what  the  apostle  wrote. 
Such  a  denial  has  not  been  attempted  until  within  the  last  ten  or  fifteen 
years,  when  certain  Dutch  and  German  critics — Steck,  Michelsen,  Voelter, 
and  others— have  made  it.  They  ignore  the  undisputed  testimony  of  the 
apostolic  fathers,  and  put  nothing  in  its  place  but  impossible  theories 
based  on  their  own  subjective  views.  Their  criticism  has  hardly  created 
a  ripple  in  the  smooth  current  of  clear  testimony  to  the  canonicity  of  the 
epistle.  Sanday,  who  examines  some  of  these  views  and  acknowledges 
his  indebtedness  to  Knowling's  "  The  Witness  of  the  Epistles,"  concludes  : 
"  It  has  been  somewhat  tedious  work  enumerating  these  theories,  which 
will  seem  probably  to  most  readers  hardly  worth  while  repeating,  so  sub- 
jective and  arbitrary  is  the  whole  criticism." 

But  Marcion,  unequivocal  in  his  witness  to  the  genuineness  of  Romans, 
assailed  its  integrity.  He  did  not  deny  that  Paul  wrote  the  last  two 
chapters,  but  denied  for  some  reason  that  they  belonged  to  this  epistle. 
It  was  not  until  Baur's  day  and  that  of  his  followers  that  they  were  declared 
spurious.  From  some  cause  they  are  not  found  in  many  cursive  manu- 
scripts, the  doxology  (xvi.  25-27)  being  appended  at  the  end  of  chapter 
xiv. 

Baur's  objections,  somewhat  plausible  as  to  chapter  xvi.,  are  not  formi- 
dable. The  question  is  noticed  in  the  body  of  this  commentary  at  the  head 
of  chapter  xv.,  and  briefly  in  the  notes  on  the  last  chapter.  It  remains  to 
say  against  the  cursive  manuscripts  that  all  the  great  uncials,  together  with 
the  Syriac  and  Vulgate  versions  and  all  the  Latin  fathers,  place  the  dox- 
ology just  where  it  is  found  in  our  King  James  version.  The  tex-ual 
critics,  from  Lachmann  to  Westcott  and  Hort,  do  the  same ;  so,  too,  Wey- 
mouth and  the  Canterbury  revision.  One  of  the  objections  to  chapter 
xvi.,  that  Paul  could  not  have  known  so  many  persons  in  Rome,  is  scarce 
worth  noticing.  And  lastly,  Paley,  in  the  same  section  quoted  above,  in 
making  eight  points  in  favor  of  the  genuineness  of  the  epistle,  finds  most 
of  them  in  these  two  chapters.  In  proving  the  epistle  he  proves  the 
genuineness  of  these  two  chapters,  and  he  does  it  with  a  lucidity  and  a 
weight  of  logic  that  no  subjective  criticism  can  possibly  overthrow,  unless 
a  subjective  objection  is  made  to  outweigh  a  solid  argument. 

4.  The  occasion  and  object  of  the  epistle  are  not  clearly  apparent 
on  its  pages.  These  are  not  hard  to  find  in  some  of  the  other  Pauline  let- 
ters. No  one  had  come  to  Paul  to  report  disorders  and  divisions  at  Rome 
such  as  moved  him  to  write  to  the  Corinthians  (i  Cor.  i.  11),  and  he  had 
not  received  a  letter  of  inquiry  from  Rome  (i  Cor.  vii.  i).     The  Romans 


xiv  INTRODUCTION 

were  neither  divided  nor  disorderly.  Their  faith  was  world-wide  in  its 
reputation  (i.  8),  and  they  were  full  of  goodness  (xv.  14).  The  Romans 
were  in  no  danger  from  Judaizing  teachers  as  were  the  Galatians,  so  that 
Paul,  in  sore  apprehension,  must  write  them  not  to  abandon  the  liberty 
in  Christ  (Gal.  v.  i)  for  the  bondage  of  the  law.  There  is  scarce  a  hint, 
or  but  one  hint,  that  the  Romans  were  in  any  danger  from  false  teachers 
(xvi.  17-19).  Again,  as  to  the  Romans,  Paul  need  not  send  to  know 
their  faith,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Thessalonians  (i  Thess.  iii.  5),  and  to 
exhort  them  to  remain  steadfast  in  the  persecutions  that  had  come  upon 
them,  for  the  Romans  were  not  persecuted  when  the  epistle  to  them  was 
written. 

{a)  The  date  (a.d.  58)  and  the  place  of  writing  (Corinth)  being  settled, 
the  occasion  becomes  apparent.  Paul  had  long  desired  to  see  Rome,  as 
">  he  declares  twice  in  the  epistle  (i.  13 ;  xv.  23)  and  once  in  Acts  (xix.  21). 
He  was  now  at  their  very  doors,  but  still  could  not  make  the  intended 
visit ;  other  work  must  be  done  first  (xv.  25),  and  only  "  after  that  "  could 
he  see  Rome  (Acts  xix.  21).  An  ejLplanation  is  also  due  the  Romans  for 
his  long-continued  delay  in  coming  to  them  (i.  9,  10;  xv.  22).  The  next 
best  thing  can  be  done.  "  Phebe  is  about  to  make  a  journey  to  Rome,  and 
Paul  will  take  this  opportunity  to  write  to  the  Roman  church. 

{p)  In  seeking  the  object  of  the  epistle,  the  topics  discussed,  the  con- 
tents, and  the  argument  must  be  kept  in  view.  The  topics  are  sin,  grace, 
Jaw,  and  brotherly  love.  There  is  but  a  word  about  the  person  of  Christ ; 
resurrection  (see  notes  on  i.  5,  p.  18)  is  assumed;  eschatology,  as  it  ap- 
pears in  other  epistles,  is  wanting;  the  church  as  such  is  mentioned  but 
once  in  the  epistle,  and  that  almost  at  its  close  and  incidentally  (xvi.  23). 
In  its  topics  the  epistle  is  far  from  comprehensive. 

As  to  its  contents,  there  are  four  grand  divisions.  After  the  salutation 
(i.  1-7)  and  the  introduction  (i.  8-15),  leading  up  to  the  theme  of  the 
epistle  (i.  16,  17),  these  follow:  i.  Sin  (i.  i8-iii.  20);  2.  Righteousness 
(iii.  2i-viii.);  3.  The  Theodicy  (ix.-xi.);  4.  Christian  Walk  (xii.-xvi.). 

The  argument  is  readily  discovered  in  the  epistle.  On  the  main  points 
there  can  be  little  difference  of  opinion  among  exegetes,  and  no  serious 
conflict  in  the  details.  The  "  Explanatory  Analysis  of  St.  Paul's  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  "  (1893),  by  Canon  H.  P.  Liddon,  is  minute  and  exhaus- 
tive. Sanday's  analysis  is,  however,  more  practical,  being,  as  it  is,  com- 
pact and  clear.  But  in  studying  the  object  of  the  epistle  minuteness  is 
not  as  necessary  as  clear  and  broad  outline.  We  may  follow,  with  some 
changes,  that  of  Professor  M.  W.  Jacobus  in  his  article  ("  Presbyterian 
Quarterly,"  January,  1893),  "  Paul's  Purpose  in  Writing  Romans,"  a 
discussion  both  comprehensive  and  satisfactory : 

I.  The  first  general  division,  viz.,  the  dogmatic  presentation  of  the  gos- 
pel righteousness  as  opposed  to  the  alleged  law  righteousness  (i.  i8-viii. 
39),  which  division  is  subdivided  into  two  parts : 

{A)  The  necessity  of  the  gospel  righteousness  (i.  i8-iii.  20),  which 
necessity  is  evidenced  by  the  impossibility  of  a  law  righteousness. 

{a)  On  the  part  of  the  heathen  (i.  18-32). 

{B)  On  the  part  of  the  Jew  (ii.  i-iii.  20). 

Having  reached  this  conclusion,  the  apostle  is  ready  to  give : 

(^)  The  positive  presentation  of  this  gospel  righteousness  (iii.  2l-viii. 
39),  arranged  in  the  following  order : 


INTRODUCTION  xv 

{a)  The  historical  fact  of  the  provision  of  this  gospel  righteousness  (iii. 
21-26),  that  excludes  all  boasting  (iii.  27-30). 

(/5)  Its  agreement  with  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  (iii.  31-iv.  25). 

\c)  Its  surety  for  the  present  and  all  the  future  (v.  1-2 1). 

{d)  Its  result  in  the  sanctification  of  the  individual  believer  (vi.  i-viii. 

39). 

(1)  He  is  dead  to  sin  (vi.  I-23). 

(2)  He  is  freed  from  the  lavi^  as  a  means  of  sanctification  (vii.  1-25). 

(3)  He  has  the  power  of  the  Spirit  (viii.  1-39). 
Then  follows : 

II.  The  second  general  division,  viz.,  the  presentation  of  the  facts  in 
the  case  regarding  Israel's  present  rejection  (ix.  i-xi.  36). 

{a)  God  is  righteous  in  rejecting,  free  in  electing  (ix.  1-33). 

\b)  Israel's  responsibility  in  the  rejection  (x.  1-21). 

(<r)  God's  gracious  plan  in  his  present  dealing  with  Israel  (xi.  1-36). 

III.  The  epistle  concludes  with  a  presentation  of  the  Christian  conduct 
flowing  from  gospel  righteousness  (xii.  i-xv.  13),  which  presentation 
subdivides  as  follows : 

(a)  Conduct  as  a  member  of  the  Christian  body  (xii.  1-2 1). 

(i)  In  exercising  special  spiritual  gifts  (xii.  1-8). 

(2)  In  the  requirement  of  love  (xii.  9-21). 

\b)  Conduct  as  a  subject  of  the  state  (xiii.  1-7). 

(r)  Conduct  toward  the  other  subjects  of  the  state  (xiii.  8-14). 

(f/)  Conduct  in  questions  of  conscience  (xiv.  i-xv.  13). 

That  which  remains  (xv.  14-xvi.  27)  is  epistolary,  like  i.  I-I7>  and  does 
not  belong  directly  to  the  argument. 

Now  to  recall  what  Paul  has  not  said  in  this  epistle,  and  to  observe  the 
trend  and  climax  of  his  argument,  must  lead  to  the  discovery  of  his  main 
design  in  writing.  The  theodicy  is  the  striking  peculiarity  of  the  epistle. 
The  climax  of  the  argument  is  the  close  of  the  eleventh  chapter  (verses 
28-36),  God's  interaction  between  the  two  permanent  divisions  of  man- 
kind, with  a  view  to  the  future  salvation  of  both.  The  theodicy  is  not  an 
episode;  it  is  that  toward  which  the  argument  moves  from  the  start. 
Paul  begins  (i.  2)  with  the  assertion  that  the  gospel  accords  with  "the 
Holy  Scriptures."  Beginning  the  third  chapter,  he  declares  (iii.  2)  that 
these  "oracles"  pertain  peculiarly  to  the  Jews.  This  assertion  alone 
made  the  theodicy  necessary,  and  it  was  already  sighted  from  this  point. 
The  fourth  chapter,  which  shows  the  agreement  between  the  Old  and 
New  Testament  justification,  seems  at  first  sight  to  be  strikinoly  like  Gala- 
tians  iii.  But  there  is  one  marked  difference.  Galatians  makes  very  clear 
that  Abraham  is  the  father  of  the  Gentiles  ;  the  fourth  chapter  of  Romans 
insists  on  the  other  point,  that  he  is  also  father  of  the  Jews,  which  is  not 
found  in  Galatians  except  by  implication.  In  Romans  Paul  from  first  to 
last  preserves  an  even  balance  between  Jew  and  Gentile ;  they  are  sinners 
alike  (i.  i8-iii.  20);  the  heads  of  the  race,  Adam  and  Christ  (chap,  v.), 
embrace  Jew  and  Gentile  alike ;  the  law  can  sanctify  neither  Jew  nor  Gen- 
tile (chap.  vii.).  When  the  argument  reaches  the  eighth  chapter  we  find 
a  striking  peculiarity,  a  detailed  prediction  of  the  glorification  of  creation 
(viii.  19-23).  Only  an  argument  that  leads  to  the  demonstration  of  the 
salvation  of  the  Jew  nationally  can  make  necessary  this  section  about 
glorified  creation,  for  the  Jew's  oracles  did  not  promise  him  heaven,  a 


xvl  INTRODUCTION 

word  which  occurs  but  twice  in  the  epistle — once  to  tell  of  the  "  wrath 
from  heaven  "  (i.  i8),  and  again  to  forbid  ascent  thither  for  justifying 
help(x.  6).  The  Gentile  salvation  (Phil,  iii.  20,  21)  maybe  unlike  that  of  the 
ancient  oracles  ;  but  the  latter  are  still  living,  to  be  made  good  to  the  Jew. 

Paul's  evangelistic  work  was  well-nigh  done.  It  needed  but  the  capstone 
of  his  visit  to  Rome,  from  which  city,  in  less  than  four  years  after  this 
epistle  was  written,— and  two  of  those  years  were  consumed  in  getting 
there,  —he  sends  out  the  triumphant  message  that  the  gospel ' '  was  preached 
to  every  creature  which  is  under  heaven  "  (Col.  i.  23).  Indeed,  before  this 
it  had  "  prevailed"  (Acts  xix.  20)  with  the  close  of  the  apostle's  work  at 
Ephesus.  The  time  has  come  to  survey  the  field.  Paul  is  standing  in 
thought  on  the  platform  of  Judaism.  His  outlook  is  from  Jerusalem, 
where  every  one  of  his  missionary  journeys  terminated.  He  sees  the 
danger— a  danger,  alas!  long  ago  realized — that  a  gospel  of  grace  that 
reduces  the  Jew  for  salvation  to  the  level  of  the  Gentile,  in  blotting 
out  Judaism  as  a  means  of  approach  to  God  may  blot  out  the  Jew. 
"What  does  it  mean  that  at  the  very  beginning  he  reminds  these  Romans 
that  this  salvation  in  Christ  is  "  first  "  to  the  Jew?  Outside  the  present 
grace  Jew  and  Gentile  are  kept  wholly  separate  from  beginning  to  end  of 
the  epistle.  Let  the  Gentile  not  boast.  This  is  his  day ;  that  of  the  Jew 
is  coming.  Paul  must  insist  that  no  man,  Jew  or  Gentile,  can  now  or 
ever  hereafter  be  saved,  except  by  faith.  This  was  good  for  all,  but  hard 
for  the  Jew  to  accept.  God's  plan  is  to  bring  him  to  an  acceptance  of  it, 
that  he  may  have  mercy  on  him  as  he  has  had  on  the  Gentile ;  and  mean- 
while let  the  Gentile  remember  not  only  that  this  is  coming,  but  that  his 
own  ultimate  triumph  cannot  come  until  mercy  to  the  Jew  appears. 

To  this  view  of  the  object  of  the  epistle  modern  thought  is  coming. 
Jacobus  says  in  the  article  cited  above:  "  Paul's  purpose  was  to  correct 
the  attitude  of  the  Gentile  element  in  the  church  at  Rome.  They  were 
exalting  his  gospel  at  the  expense  of  the  Jew.  His  plan  in  writing  the 
epistle,  therefore,  was  to  take  up  this  gospel  of  his  .  .  .  and  show  that, 
after  all,  it  did  not  ignore  the  Jew  either  as  an  essential  element  in  the 
Christian  church  or  as  the  still  unbelieving  people  outside  of  it ;  in  other 
words,  that  his  Gentile  gospel  was  not  to  be  overpressed  and  placed  in 
opposition  to  all  the  revelation  and  work  of  God  so  far." 

Sanday  comes  to  substantially  the  same  conclusion  :  "  Clearly  this  ques- 
tion belongs  to  the  later  reflective  stage  of  the  controversy  relating  to  Jew 
and  Gentile.  The  active  contending  for  Gentile  liberties  would  come  first, 
the  philosophic  or  theologic  assignment  of  the  due  place  of  Jew  and  Gen- 
tile in  the  divine  scheme  would  come  afterward.  This  more  advanced 
stage  has  now  been  reached."  Salvation  by  grace  is  final.  There  never 
will  be  any  other  means  of  saving  men.  But  the  results  so  far  seen  are 
far  from  final,  and  let  not  the  Gentile  confound  these  two.  Grace  for  the 
present  has  saved  him  and  left  outside  the  nation  from  which  it  first  went 
abroad.  The  theodicy,  the  culmination  of  the  epistle,  tells  why  the  Jew 
is  thus  left  for  the  present,  but  it  sees  his  glory  in  the  future.  Let  the 
Gentile  not  shut  his  eyes  to  it. 

5.  The  peculiarities  of  the  epistle  demand  attention.  The  first  that 
strikes  one  is  its  world-wide  view — its  universalism.  In  all  time  and  in 
all  nations  men  are  sinners.  God's  wrath  is  not  a  flash  of  lightning ;  it 
gleams  from  the  whole  heaven.     Sin  and  grace  are  traced  to  their  ultimate 


INTRODUCTION  xvii 

sources  in  Adam  and  in  Christ.  The  law  as  a  means  of  salvation  is  swept 
away  at  one  stroke.  The  salvation  is  considered  not  in  its  relation  to  a 
single  soul  or  even  a  single  church,  but  in  its  relation  to  the  creation  itself 
and  to  every  nation  in  it.  When  it  comes  to  duties,  they  are  also  com- 
prehensively treated.  Love  is  the  universal  principle,  and  the  believer  is 
looked  at  in  his  relation  to  the  state,  to  the  church,  to  his  neighbor,  to  his 
brother,  and  to  himself. 

The  eloquence  of  the  epistle  cannot  be  overlooked.  Other  epistles  have 
eloquent  passages,  like  i  Corinthians  xiii.  and  xv.  or  Ephesians  iii.  8-21 ; 
but  in  this  epistle  there  are  such  passages  in  almost  every  chapter  (i.  16- 
23;  ii.  4-1 1 ;  iii.  21-26,  etc.),  but  notably  the  conclusions  of  both  chapter 
viii.  and  chapter  xi.  The  whole  epistle  is  marked  by  a  sustained  elevation 
of  thought  and  sentiment.  This  universalism  and  eloquence  befit  an 
epistle  to  the  world's  capital— an  epistle  that  deals  with  the  world's  destiny 
through  its  two  divisions  of  men,  Jew  and  Gentile. 

In  its  style  the  epistle  is  marked  by  great  energy,  but  not  with  vehe- 
mence. It  is  the  resistless  flow  of  a  broad,  deep  river,  noiseless,  but  ever 
onward.  But  this  is  true  of  the  argument  rather  than  of  the  words  that 
convey  it,  which  move  rapidly  and  are  often  warm  with  the  writer's  earnest 
feeling.  His  feeling  throughout  is  more  uniform  than  in  some  of  his  other 
epistles ;  not  as  calm  as  in  Ephesians,  but  more  so  than  in  Galatians  ;  but 
sometimes,  as  in  ix.  1-5,  xi.  33-36,  it  rises  to  great  intensity.  The 
epistle  is  the  masterpiece  of  the  apostle,  in  which  the  gospel  in  its  strictest 
sense  is  methodically  unfolded  and  shown  in  its  widest  connection.  All 
men,  Jew  and  Gentile,  are  lost,  "being  justified  freely  by  his  [God's] 
grace  through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus  "  (iii.  24). 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS 


CHAPTER   I* 

THE    OUTLOOK 


As  Paul  was  the  preacher  of  a  world-wide  gospel,  a  gospel 
suited  to  every  moral  and  national  condition,  he  comes  be- 
fore the  Romans  in  this  character.  The  first  chapter  gives  a 
wide  survey.  It  glances  at  the  Scriptures  as  a  whole,  recalls 
their  ancient  promise  of  a  Saviour,  outlines  Paul's  extended 
labors,  and  presents  the  religious  history  of  the  Gentile  world 
from  the  beginning.  It  has  three  topics:  (i)  the  salutation 
(verses  1-7);  (2)  Paul's  fraternal  introduction  (verses  8-17); 
(3)  the  guilt  of  the  Gentile  world  in  all  time  (verses  19-32). 
In  discussing  this  last  topic,  the  course  of  thought  is  that  {a) 
God's  wrath  is  revealed  against  the  sins  of  all  men  (verse  18), 
because  (d)  all  men  know  his  will  (verse  19^) ;  (c)  they  know 
it,  for  he  himself  has  revealed  it  in  nature  (verses  19/^,  20) ;  (d) 
men  rejected  the  light  given,  and  in  devising  their  own  came 
into  darkness  (verses  21,22);  (<?)  in  this  darkness  they  fell  into 
idolatry  (verses  23-25),  sensuaHty  (verses  26,  27),  and  every 
other  kind  of  immorality  (verses  28-32). 

J,  In  the  salutation  (verses  1-7)  the  writer  first  identi- 
fies himself.     At  the  time  he  wrote  he  was  already  so  well 

*  The  divisions  in  this  book  are,  both  as  to  the  chapters  and  verses, 
those  of  the  epistle  itself. 

15 


16  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (I.  2, 3) 

known  at  Rome  that  he  need  give  only  his  name,  Paul.  As 
to  his  relation  to  Jesus  Christ,  he  was  a  bond-servant.  As  to 
his  office,  he  was  one  sent  forth,  an  apostle.  As  to  his  right 
to  this  office,  his  authority,  he  was  specifically  called.  As  to 
the  limits  of  his  work,  he  was  separated  from  everything  else 
and  confined  to  the  gospel,  the  message  from  God.  His  duty 
was  narrow,  excluding  even  the  administration  of  the  initiatory 
ordinance  (i  Cor.  i.  17). 

2*  With  the  second  verse  he  begins  the  exaltation  of  his  sub- 
ject—the  message  from  God.  First,  it  is  not  novel.  God  prom- 
ised it  long  before  by  means  of  "  his  prophets."  The  latter  get 
their  dignity  and  authority  in  the  little  word  **his."  They 
were  God's  own.  How  much  would  have  been  lost  if,  instead 
of  "  his,"  Paul  had  used  the  word  "  the  "  !  The  prophets  were 
not  an  evolutionary  product  of  their  times,— there  were  many 
such  (2  Chron.  xviii. ;  Matt.  vii.  22,  23),— but  men  endowed 
with  God's  Spirit  to  foresee  the  gospel  message.  It  was  re- 
corded in  Scriptures  which  are  "  holy."  The  emphasis  is  on 
the  word  "  holy."  It  calls  attention  to  the  character  of  these 
writings.  By  means  of  these  two  words,  "  his  "  and  "  holy," 
Paul  shows  the  lofty  and  unique  origin  of  the  gospel  message. 
If  any  should  accuse  him  of  promulgating  a  new  gospel  his 
answer  is  that  his  message  was  foretold  for  hundreds  of  years. 
It  is  in  harmony  with  the  Bible  of  that  day.  And  this  is  not 
a  mere  ad  honmiem  argument  against  the  Jews.  He  virtually 
declares  that  their  Bible  was  itself  a  supernatural  product.  The 
Old  Testament  is  the  documentary  defense  of  the  gospel. 

3.  To  show  still  further  the  glory  of  the  gospel  he  mentions, 
secondly,  its  exalted  theme.  It  is  concerning  God's  Son,  Jesus 
Christ.  The  first  word  in  this  verse  joins  it  either  with  the  end 
of  the  first  verse,  "gospel  of  God,"  or  with  the  word  "prom- 
ised "  in  the  second  verse.  The  sense  is  about  the  same  with 
either  connection. 

Jesus  Christ,  the  theme  of  the  gospel  story,  is  declared  to  be 


(I.  4)  THE   OUTLOOK  17 

preeminent  both  on  his  human  and  on  his  divine  side.  The 
antithesis  in  the  phrases  "  according  to  the  flesh  "  and  "  ac- 
cording to  the  spirit "  does  not  He  in  the  sphere  of  his  person, 
but  in  his  relations.  He  was  one  person,  but  he  belonged  to 
two  realms.  According  to  the  flesh,  looked  at  in  his  connec- 
tion with  the  race,  his  origin  was  the  very  highest.  He  was 
princely,  being  descended  from  the  royal  family  of  David. 
According  to  the  spirit  of  holiness, — that  is,  looked  at  in  his 
connection  with  the  realm  above, — he  was  higher  than  all 
angels  (Heb.  i.  4) :  he  was  the  Son  of  God.  The  relation  of 
the  two  natures  in  Christ's  person  is  not  thought  of.  That 
question  was  not  raised  in  Paul's  day.  Neither  would  it  suit 
the  context.  Paul  is  magnifying  the  theme  of  the  gospel.  It 
is  about  a  being  the  most  exalted,  whether  viewed  in  his  human 
or  in  his  divine  relations.  The  twofold  antithetic  statement 
shows  its  significance  when  applied,  as  it  well  can  be,  to  an- 
other. It  could  be  said  of  David,  as  to  his  flesh,  as  to  his 
origin  as  a  man,  he  was  the  son  of  Jesse,  or  even  the  son  of 
Judah ;  as  to  his  relation  to  God,  he  was  the  declared  and  ac- 
knowledged king  of  Israel.  It  would  be  absurd  to  ask  now, 
about  the  person  of  David,  what  part  was  merely  natural  or 
human  and  what  was  royal  or  kingly.  He  was  a  man  and  a 
king  both  at  the  same  time.  And  so  of  Jesus :  he  was  the  son 
of  David  and  the  Son  of  God.  Of  course  the  latter  relation 
involved  an  appropriate  nature,  but  that  nature  is  not  the 
question  here. 

4»  Because  the  terms  "flesh"  and  "spirit"  designate  not 
what  was  in  Christ  as  constituent  of  his  person,  but  two  exter- 
nal and  converging  agencies,  at  whose  point  of  contact  he  ap- 
peared historically,  it  is  not  Paul's  purpose  to  show  what  Christ 
is,  but  how  he  was  declared  to  be  what  he  is.  His  resurrection 
powerfully  asserted  his  Sonship.  The  rising  from  the  dead  did 
not  create  him  a  Son.  This  very  passage  says  he  was  born  so. 
The  gospel  according  to  the  text  is  about  "his  [God's]  Son,  who 


18  THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (I.  5) 

was  bom."  The  word  "  made  "  of  the  King  James  version  is 
abandoned  by  recent  translations.  The  three  phrases  begin- 
ning at  "  with,"  "  according,"  and  "  by  "  give  respectively  the 
manner,  the  measure,  and  the  means  or  cause  of  the  declara- 
tion of  Christ's  Sonship. 

5»  But  Paul  mentions  the  resurrection  for  an  additional  pur- 
pose—to give  the  source  and  character  of  his  own  apostolic 
grace.  Immediately  upon  this  mention  he  adds  "through 
whom  "—through  this  raised  Christ — "we  received  grace  and 
apostleship."  This  is  all-important.  It  gives  at  one  stroke  the 
point  of  view  from  which  Paul  will  discuss  the  gospel ;  not  from 
the  side  of  the  incarnation,  but  from  the  side  of  the  resurrec- 
tion (2  Cor.  v.  16).  It  is  not  always  noted  that  this  is  the 
epistle  of  the  resurrection,  resurrection  not  of  the  body,— alluded 
to  only  twice  in  the  epistle  (iv.  17  ;  viii.  10),  and  both  times 
by  an  unusual  word,— but  resurrection  as  the  central  potency 
of  salvation.  Both  justification  and  sanctification  are  secured 
by  it.  "  He  was  raised  again  for  our  justification."  We  are 
"married  to  another,  even  to  him  who  was  raised  from  the 
dead,"  that  we  might  bring  forth  fruit  unto  God.  The  subject 
is  mentioned  in  i.  4 ;  iv.  17,  24,  25  ;  v.  10 ;  vi.  4,  5,  9 ;  vii.  4 ; 
viii.  II,  34  ;  X.  9  ;  and  possibly  xi.  15.  But  this  occurrence  of 
the  word  is  but  the  outcropping  here  and  there  of  the  granite 
ledge  that  Hes  everywhere  underneath  the  epistle  and  on  which 
it  is  based. 

In  this  fifth  verse  Paul  has  come  around  to  that  with  which 
he  started  in  the  first.  There  he  was  an  apostle.  Here  now, 
by  means  of  what  intervenes,  he  shows  the  dignity  and  char- 
acter of  his  apostleship.  It  is  from  a  raised  Christ,  who  was 
promised  in  the  Scriptures.  Hence  the  Scriptures  predict  the 
resurrection,  and  hence,  too,  the  gospel  according  to  Paul  is 
universal.  It  is  not  Jewish,  but  world-wide,  a  gospel  for  the 
Gentiles,  for  by  resurrection  Jesus  transcended  all  Jewish  con- 
nection and  became  the  world's  Saviour,  a  Saviour  not  by  obe- 


(I.  6,  7)  THE   OUTLOOK  19 

dience  to  law  which  was  Mosaic,  but  by  the  power  of  an  endless 
life.  Life  is  universal.  Thus  Paul,  by  linking  his  apostolate 
with  the  raised  Christ,  gives  first  the  character  of  this  epistle, 
and  secondly  its  scope.  It  is  the  epistle  of  divine  life  in  Christ 
Jesus  for  all  nations,  on  the  condition  of  faith. 

6,  ?•  After  his  profound  prelude,  Paul,  in  the  sixth  verse, 
reassures  his  readers,  declaring  that  they  are  embraced  in  the 
intent  of  the  gospel;  then  comes  the  salutation  proper.  It 
connects  with  the  first  verse,  that  which  Hes  between  verses  2 
and  6  being,  so  to  speak,  parenthetical. 

Two  things  may  be  observed  in  this  salutation.  First,  like 
most  of  them  (see  especially  Gal.  i.  1-5),  it  involves  the  germ 
of  all  that  follows.  It  has  four  items :  the  writer  has  a  mes- 
sage in  accord  with  the  Scriptures ;  it  is  from  the  risen  Christ ; 
it  is  universal ;  and  it  is  for  obedience  to  the  faith.  These  are 
the  leading  thoughts  of  the  epistle. 

Secondly,  this  salutation  is  striking  in  that  it  implicitly  as- 
serts the  cardinal  points  of  the  gospel  history,  "  the  fundamental 
facts  of  Christianity."  The  epistle  was  written  within  thirty 
years  after  Jesus  Christ  trod  the  earth.  This  cannot  be  denied. 
It  is  generally  admitted.  And  this  salutation  asserts  now  that 
the  main  facts  of  the  gospel  were  in  accord  with  Old  Testament 
prediction ;  it  asserts  the  incarnation  and  the  resurrection,  and 
that  these  Romans,  qualified  to  weigh  the  facts,  had  responded 
with  implicit  faith  in  them.  What  they  trusted  then  men  may 
safely  trust  now. 

Having  addressed  the  Romans  formally  and  officially,  Paul 
now  writes  personally.  One  cannot  fail  to  see  between  the 
lines  that  the  Romans  had  expected  him  to  visit  them  before 
this  time,  and  that  Paul  is  justifying  himself  for  his  failure  to 
meet  that  expectation.  Rome  was  the  capital  of  the  Gentile 
world,  and  Paul  was  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles ;  why  did  he 
not  come  to  them?  Why  spend  years  in  the  provinces?  Once 
before  he  had  been  at  their  very  doors  (Acts  xviii.  1-18)  and 


20  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (I.  8-16) 

had  turned  away  from  them,  and  now  he  was  about  to  do  so 
again  (cf.  Acts  xix.  21  with  xx.  3 ;  Rom.  xv.  25).  This  intro- 
duction has  this  state  of  things  in  full  view. 

8- J 3*  He  is  not  indifferent  about  the  spiritual  welfare  of  the 
Roman  church.  He  thanks  God  by  means  of  Jesus  Christ  for 
their  faith,  already  known  throughout  the  Roman  empire.  This 
wide  reputation  implies  that  at  this  date  there  was  a  general 
diffusion  of  the  gospel.  And  since  there  is  no  other  to  testify, 
he  calls  God  to  witness  that  he  makes  unceasing  prayer  for 
them.  He  prays  also  that  God  would  prosper  him  in  a  jour- 
ney to  them.  He  longs  to  see  them,  that  he  may  help  them 
and  may  be  helped  by  them.  He  declares  to  them  the  fact 
that  he  has  again  and  again  tried  to  come  to  them,  but  was 
hindered.  He  covets  the  same  fruit  among  them  that  he  has 
found  among  other  Gentiles.  All  this  is  neither  the  spirit  nor 
the  conduct  of  one  not  their  friend. 

J4.  It  is  not  without  some  vehemence— there  is  no  connect- 
ing word  introducing  this  verse— that  he  professes  his  obliga- 
tion to  men  of  every  tongue,  "  Greeks  and  Barbarians,"  and  to 
men  of  every  degree  of  culture,  "  wise  and  foolish."  In  these 
categories  his  readers  would  be  classed  with  the  Greeks  and  the 
wise,  for  the  word  "Greek"  in  the  New  Testament  is  not 
strictly  an  ethnic  term  (Acts  vii.  26). 

t5»  In  accordance  with  this  acknowledged  obligation  Paul 
declares  his  readiness  to  preach  at  Rome.  He  is  master  of  his 
purpose,  but  not  of  his  circumstances. 

Xd^  "  For  I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel  of  [concerning] 
Christ."  If  any  one  in  Rome  either  said  or  thought  that  Paul 
did  not  come  to  the  capital  because  he  distrusted  the  gospel  for 
that  field,  this  is  his  answer.  And  the  reason  he  is  not  ashamed 
of  it  is  because  it  is  God's  power  effecting  salvation  in  every 
believer.  Power  of  any  kind  is  in  honor  among  men,  and  divine 
power  can  put  no  man  to  the  blush.  In  this  brief  sentence  Paul 
has  packed  three  rich  facts :  first,  the  effect  of  the  gospel— sal- 


(I.  17)  THE   OUTLOOK  21 

vation  ,  secondly,  the  extent— it  is  world-wide,  to  "every  one"  ; 
and  thirdly,  its  condition— faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  Paul  con- 
templates men  of  every  land  and  of  every  degree  of  culture. 
If  they  have  discovered  or  if  they  can  discover  any  other  means 
of  salvation  than  the  gospel,  it  has  nothing  to  boast  of ;  it  no 
longer  stands  alone.  But  he  is  not  ashamed  to  present  it  to 
the  civilized  and  the  learned,  for  culture  has  not  brought  them 
salvation,  nor  even  the  means  of  it. 

J  7.  This  verse  gives  the  very  point  of  the  effectiveness  of 
the  gospel.  Certainly  he  is  righteous  before  God  who  follows 
God's  means  of  righteousness.  And  the  gospel  alone  reveals 
this  righteousness.  In  what  it  unveils  Hes  its  power.  Right- 
eousness means  conformity  to  the  divine  claims  on  man.  This 
conformity  is  reached  by  means  of  faith.  On  man's  part  faith 
is  the  righteousness  (iv.  5).  The  phrase  "from  faith  to  faith" 
is  to  be  joined  not  with  the  verb  "  revealed,"  but  with  the 
word  "righteousness."  The  apostle  is  not  concerned  here 
with  the  mode  of  the  revelation,  but  with  the  character  of  that 
which  is  revealed.  It  is  a  by-faith  righteousness.  So  far  as 
the  message  of  the  gospel  is  concerned,  the  revelation  is  purely 
objective.  To  connect  the  phrase  in  question,  as  many  able 
commentators  do,  with  the  verb  "  revealed  "  makes  the  power 
of  the  gospel  to  lie  in  the  manner  in  which  it  discloses  salva- 
tion, rather  than  in  what  it  discloses,  and  the  gospel  itself  to 
be  unknown  but  by  an  experience  of  it.  Paul  is  first  of  all  and 
most  of  all  describing  the  righteousness  objectively,  and  only 
incidentally  showing  how  it  is  to  be  attained.  The  latter  he 
does  further  on. 

The  phrase  "  from  faith  to  faith  "  is,  literally,  "  out  of  faith 
into  faith."  The  righteousness  provided  by  God  is  seen  to  be 
one  that  springs  out  of  faith ;  it  is  one  adapted  only  to  (into) 
faith.  The  phrase  might  be  rendered  "  by  faith  for  faith,"  in 
which  its  simple  meaning  is  seen  that  it  is  a  righteousness 
wholly  by  faith ;  just  as  it  might  be  said  of  a  healing  ointment, 


22  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (I.  i8) 

it  is  a  remedy  by  rubbing,  a  remedy  for  rubbing,  and  not  a 
remedy  for  or  by  any  other  use. 

As  this  means  of  salvation  involves  the  chief  element  in  the 
gospel,  and  the  point  at  which  it  departs  from  the  Pharisees' 
teaching  of  Paul's  day,  he  quotes  their  own  Scriptures  to  show 
that  he  is  not  inventing  something  new.  As  in  Habakkuk's 
day,  so  now  men  live  by  faith.  It  is  not  a  proof-text,  but  it 
indicates  decisively  that  there  is  harmony  between  the  gospel 
and  the  law. 

With  the  eighteenth  verse  of  this  first  chapter  the  discussion 
begins.  Under  the  first  topic,  the  universality  of  sin,  Paul  be- 
gins with  the  Gentile  world.  There  is  not  much  argument  on 
this  point.  A  mere  statement  of  the  facts  was  sufficient  to  gain 
the  consent  of  all  his  readers.  When  he  comes  to  speak  of  the 
sinfulness  of  the  Jew  (chap,  ii.)  he  resorts  to  proofs. 

\Z*  The  **  for  "  is  not  specific,  but  comprehensive.  It  looks 
at  all  that  Paul  has  just  been  saying.  He  is  not  ashamed  of 
the  gospel.  The  gospel  would  be  nothing  if  men  were  not 
guilty  and  in  need  of  the  rescue  which  the  gospel  alone  can 
afford.  The  gospel  alone  reveals  the  means  of  salvation,  for 
everywhere  else  there  is  no  revelation  except  of  wrath.  The 
eighteenth  verse,  about  wrath,  gives  significance  to  the  preced- 
ing two,  about  grace.  Sin  is  the  measure  of  salvation.  Only 
they  know  what  it  is  to  be  saved  who  know  what  it  is  to  be 
lost.  All  heresy  has  its  source  in  wrong  or  feeble  conceptions 
of  sin.  "  As  with  churches,  so  with  individuals,  the  estimate  of 
sin  determines  everything"  ("Hulsean  Lectures,"  1874,  p.  14). 
The  power  of  the  gospel  need  not  shame  one,  for  everywhere 
else  God's  wrath,  from  which  it  can  save,  is  revealed. 

This  wrath  or  holy  anger  is  universally  revealed,  "  from 
heaven."  Men  in  all  ages  have  been  aware  that  the  Power 
above  frowned  upon  them  for  their  deeds.  These  deeds  fall 
under  two  heads :  "  ungodliness,"  a  denial  of  the  character  or 
essence  of  God,  and  "  unrighteousness,"  a  denial  of  his  rule. 


(I.  19-21)  THE   OUTLOOK  23 

The  blackness  of  their  sin  is  that  they  "  hold  "  or  withhold  the 
truth  in  unrighteousness. 

J9»  The  assertion  that  they  so  withhold  the  truth  and  are 
amenable  to  God's  wrath  is  justified  on  the  ground  ("  because  ") 
that  what  may  be  known  of  God— that  is,  "the  truth"— is 
manifest  in  them.  They  know  the  truth.  They  know  it  be- 
cause God  has  showed  it  to  them.  They  have  had  a  teacher 
who  could  not  fail  in  his  work.  The  steps  so  far  are  three : 
God's  wrath  is  righteously  revealed  against  men ;  it  is  so  re- 
vealed because  men  know  and  will  not  do  ;  they  know  because 
God  himself  was  their  instructor.  Their  sin,  then,  is  wilful 
opposition  to  the  revealed  truth  about  God  and  from  God. 

20*  This  verse  tells  first  how  the  revelation  was  given — "  by 
the  things  that  were  made."  Creation  is  revelation.  Secondly, 
it  tells  how  long  the  revelation  has  been  in  existence — "from 
the  creation  of  the  world."  God  created  man,  and  from  the 
beginning  the  Creator  could  be  known  by  that  which  he  cre- 
ated (Acts  xvii.  29).  Thirdly,  the  verse  tells  what  has  been  re- 
vealed—  "the  invisible  things  of  him,"  that  is,  "his  eternal  power 
and  Godhead,"  or  divinity.  There  never  was  a  time  when  the 
divine  personality  did  not  reveal  himself  to  men.  God's 
works  constitute  his  earliest  and  his  universal  Bible.  It  was 
open  and  legible.  "  The  dim  light  of  nature  "  is  a  phrase  of 
fiction,  not  of  fact.  His  invisible  things  are  "  clearly  "  seen. 
That  first  Bible  in  the  sky  above  (Ps.  xix.),  the  earth  beneath, 
and  in  the  heart  of  man  was  not  written,  but  it  was  read,  read 
to  men  by  God  himself,— "  God  hath  showed  it  unto  them," 
— so  that  they  are  without  excuse.  It  was  not  from  lack  of 
knowledge  that  men  sinned,  but  in  spite  of  it.  Sin  was  not 
an  infirmity,  not  an  inability  from  lack  of  development  in 
primitive  men,  but  a  wilful  refusal  to  conform  to  the  teaching 
given  by  God. 

2J.  The  last  verse  closed  with  the  statement  that  men  in 
all  ages,  the  Gentiles,  were  without  excuse  under  the  wrath 


24  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (I.  22) 

of  God.  This  verse  restates  and  expands  the  reason:  "Be- 
cause that,  when  they  knew  God,  they  glorified  him  not  as 
God,  neither  were  thankful."  This  is  the  "  ungodliness  and 
unrighteousness"  of  the  eighteenth  verse.  They  knew  him; 
this  is  plainly  asserted ;  but  they  did  not  respect  his  person  by 
giving  him  worship,  neither  did  they  acknowledge  his  benefits 
by  giving  thanks.  They  withheld  the  truth,  the  knowledge 
of  God,  in  their  unrighteousness;  and  a  negative  or  neutral 
position  before  God  is  impossible.  As  they  refused  to  follow 
the  light,  they  were  brought  to  folly  in  their  thoughts— "be- 
came vain  in  their  [corrupt]  reasonings,  and  their  foolish  [sense- 
less] heart  was  darkened."  The  intellectual  revolt  against 
what  they  knew  to  be  right  was  attended  by  a  darkening  of 
the  whole  understanding.  The  refusal  to  accept  the  truth 
destroys  the  power  to  discriminate  between  truth  and  error. 

This  is  Paul's  general  survey  of  the  religious  history  of  the 
race  from  the  beginning.  In  his  earher  days  man  was  mono- 
theistic. His  development  has  not  been  upward,  but  down- 
ward, not  toward  God,  but  from  him.  The  prime  error  lay 
in  seeking  to  know  God  while  denying  the  evidence  which  he 
himself  has  given  of  his  character  and  personality.  God 
manifested  himself  unmistakably ;  but  instead  of  worship  and 
praise,  the  two  eyes  without  which  God  cannot  be  seen,  men 
betook  themselves  to  vain  reasoning.  "The  world  by  wis- 
dom knew  not  God"  (i  Cor.  i.  21).  God  knows  how  to  re- 
veal himself  in  nature,  and  to-day  in  his  Word.  He  is  quali- 
fied to  give  evidence  of  himself.  In  man's  estimation  it  may 
be  insufficient  and  even  absurd ;  he  may  see  no  evidence  of 
God  in  nature,  and  nothing  but  patchwork  in  the  Bible ;  but 
one  word  from  either  source  is  worth  more  than  all  human 
speculation.  "The  foolishness  of  God  is  wiser  than  men" 
(i  Cor.  i.  25). 

22.  "They  became  fools."  This  is  the  writer's,  not  to 
say  God's,  estimate  of  the  philosophers  and  rehgious  leaders 


(I.  23)  THE   OUTLOOK  25 

of  the  race.  He  knew  the  boasted  wisdom  of  the  Euphrates 
and  of  the  Nile,  the  learning  of  Hellas  and  of  Rome.  We 
know  it  to-day.  But  there  is  this  difference :  there  are  those 
in  our  time  who  see  no  generic  difference  between  these  ethnic 
sages  and  the  prophets  of  God,  while  Paul  declares  the  former 
to  be  but  "  fools." 

23»  This  verse  gives  the  evidence  of  their  folly.  The  glory 
of  God,  that  admirable  and  effulgent  representation  of  himself 
which  glowed  in  all  that  he  had  made,  this  they  changed  in  the 
hkeness  of  an  image— "the  uncorruptible  God  into  an  image 
made  Hke  to  corruptible  man."  The  odiousness  of  idolatry  is 
not  alone  in  the  immorality  to  which  it  leads,  but  that  it  is  a 
caricature  of  God  and  a  slander.  It  belongs  to  his  glory  that  he 
is  imperishable.  He  was  likened  in  that  which  is  corruptible. 
The  very  material  of  the  image  was  a  dishonor,  as  if  one 
should  erect  a  statue  to  a  distinguished  man  to-day  not  in 
marble  or  bronze,  but  in  chalk  or  putty.  To  liken  God  to 
man  is  idolatry.  Men  were  to  make  no  image  of  him.  Had 
they  preserved  their  original  conception  of  him  they  would  not 
have  attempted  it.  In  due  time  he  gave  an  image  of  himself 
in  a  sinless  being  who  was  animated  with  eternal  life,  "the 
brightness  of  his  glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  person" 
(Heb.  i.  3).  If  Jesus  was  not  more  than  a  mortal,  he  was  an 
idol. 

These  professed  sages  did  not  stop  with  likening  God  to 
man ;  they  figured  him  as  a  bird,  then  as  a  quadruped,  and 
finally  as  a  reptile.  There  was  the  Apollo  of  the  Greeks,  the 
eagle  of  the  Romans,  the  bull  of  the  Egyptians,  and  the  ser- 
pent of  the  Assyrians.  Paul  may  be  giving  in  this  verse  the 
historical  development  of  idolatry,  from  its  highest  phase  to 
its  worst ;  or  he  may  be  setting  it  forth  in  climactic  form ;  but 
certain  it  is  that  all  these  phases  of  the  sin  existed. 

In  this  review  of  the  world's  rehgion  from  the  beginning, 
Paul  teaches  that  man  at  the  first  was  not  an  idolater.     The 


26  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS        (I.  24-27) 

origin  of  this  sin  is  not  contemporaneous  with  the  appearance 
of  man  on  the  globe.  Man  did  not  work  his  way  from  fetish- 
ism through  polytheism  up  to  monotheism  and  the  worship  of 
the  true  God.  His  course  was  the  reverse.  From  the  begin- 
ning he  did  not  grow  better  religiously,  but  worse.  The  Bible 
gives  no  evidence  of  idolatry  among  the  antediluvians.  Men 
in  that  age  called  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  (Gen.  iv.  26).  The 
earliest  mention  of  idolatry  belongs  to  the  days  of  Abraham 
(Josh.  xxiv.  2).  Paul  here  gives  the  history  and  origin  of  idol- 
atry. Men  knew  God  and  refused  to  worship  him.  Idolatry  fol- 
lowed as  a  psychological  necessity.  If  there  is  a  force  of  de- 
velopment inherent  in  man,  a  force  tending  upward,  the  gos- 
pel of  the  grace  of  God  is  an  impertinence,  and  Paul  might 
well  be  ashamed  of  it.  And  why  has  not  this  force  manifested 
itself  somewhat  in  the  last  two  thousand  years  in  Africa,  in 
India,  and  in  China?  The  idolatry  of  to-day  is  no  better 
than  that  which  grieved  Paul. 

24-27»  This  is  the  next  long  step  downward.  From  idola- 
try sprang  sensuality.  Originally  man  was  chaste,  but  when 
he  cast  God  off,  his  animal  passions  were  unchained.  It  was 
God's  infliction  of  punishment  for  the  sin  of  idolatry.  He 
punished  one  sin  by  the  imposition  of  another.  Twice  in 
these  verses  we  are  told  that  "  God  gave  them  up,"  not  pas- 
sively, but  actively.  The  reason  is  again  given:  "Who 
changed  the  truth  of  God  into  the  lie  "  of  idolatry.  They  did 
not  change  a  lie  into  truth.  Man's  course  was  not  in  that 
direction.  They  took  "the  truth  of  God"  which  he  gave 
them  and  perverted  it  to  the  falsehood  of  idol- worship.  This 
was  the  cause  of  that  vileness  whose  hideous  description  we 
have  here.  "  For  even  their  women."  There  is  point  in  that 
word  "  even."  Woman  is  the  purer,  the  more  modest,  of  the 
sexes,  has  propensities  less  ardent;  but  even  she  became 
worse  than  beastly  and  equaled  vile  man  in  his  depravity. 
The  corruption  that  got  into  the  blood  of  the  race  by  the  fall 


(I.  28-32)  THE   OUTLOOK  27 

did  not  show  itself  at  once.  The  earher  families  and  tribes  of 
the  world  were  pure ;  God  kept  them  so.  Whatever  morality 
there  is  in  the  world  is  due  not  to  human  nature,  but  to  the 
restraining  power  of  God.  When  God  "  gave  them  up,"  the 
original  corruption  in  the  blood  showed  itself  in  foul  moral 
ulcers,  and  human  virtue  proved  to  be  less  than  that  of  the 
beasts  of  the  field,  among  which  the  barriers  of  sex  are  not 
crossed. 

28-3J.  Again  we  are  told  that  "  God  gave  them  over,"  and 
again  for  the  same  reason.  As  they  did  not  like  to  retain 
God  in  their  knowledge,  he  smote  their  mind  to  work  abnor- 
mally and  wickedly.  They  failed  not  only  in  their  passions, 
but  also  in  their  thought.  They  practised  not  only  sensuahty, 
but  every  other  kind  of  immorality.  Paul  gives  an  appalling 
catalogue  of  their  crimes. 

32»  The  last  verse  in  the  chapter  sums  up  everything  written 
from  the  eighteenth,  and  restates  it  with  unmistakable  plain- 
ness. Men  in  all  time  and  in  all  ages  knew  the  "  judgment " 
of  God  against  sin,  that  it  was  death ;  but,  in  defiance  of  his 
wrath,  they  not  only  continued  to  practise  these  foul  deeds, 
but  to  applaud  those  who  did  them.  The  lowest  stage  in  de- 
pravity is  to  take  pleasure  in  those  who  exhibit  it.  It  is  with 
this  thought  that  Paul  brings  the  discussion  of  the  Gentiles' 
sin  to  a  close  and  a  climax. 

Many  salutary  lessons  are  taught  in  this  sad  recital : 

First,  God  gives  in  the  works  which  he  has  made  sufficient 
knowledge  of  himself  for  adoration  and  gratitude.  This 
knowledge  is  accessible  to  the  heathen  of  to-day.  The  first 
verse  in  Genesis,  repeated  in  almost  every  other  book  of  the 
Bible,  is  vital.  God  is  before  all  things,  and  created  them. 
It  is  vital,  for  he  is  '*  understood  by  the  things  that  are  made." 

Second,  man's  rehgious  evolution  is  not  upward,  but  down- 
ward. Men  had  sufficient  hght,  and  refused  it.  In  their 
darkness  the  desce^iding  steps  were  three :  the  growth  of  elabo- 


28  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (I.  32) 

rate  systems  of  idolatry,  the  loss  of  all  restraint  upon  the 
animal  passions,  and  the  complete  violation  of  all  the  com- 
mands of  the  second  table.  The  list  of  sins  in  verses  29-31 
looks  to  this  second  table ;  for  the  words  **  haters  of  God," 
the  only  exception  in  the  Hst,  ought  to  be  "  hateful  to  God." 

Third,  God  punishes  sin  with  sin.  This  is  his  "wrath." 
If  men  will  not  honor  him,  he  takes  away  from  them  the 
power  of  chastity  and  morality.  Indeed,  the  section  teaches 
that  these  sins  come  as  a  punitive  infliction  from  God.  This 
wrath  against  the  race  can  never  cease  while  men  as  a  whole 
refuse  to  glorify  him  "  as  God."  The  attempt  to  rid  the  un- 
believing world  of  the  moral  ills  that  afflict  it  is  to  attempt 
to  change  God's  judgment  of  wrath.  The  world  has  deliber- 
ately and  finally  cast  God  off.  It  is  well-nigh  two  thousand 
years  since  this  sad  list  of  sins  was  set  down  by  the  pen  of 
Paul.  Let  candor  say  which  one  of  them  has  ceased  to  have 
an  existence  among  men.  They  came  in  God's  wrath  then 
because  men  refused  the  light  of  nature.  The  light  to-day  in 
Jesus  Christ  is  many  times  more  intense,  and  men  still  refuse. 

Fourth,  we  now  have  Paul's  point  of  view,  and  can  see  what 
he  means  in  calling  the  gospel  a  "  power  "  and  in  declaring 
that  he  is  not  "  ashamed  "  of  it.  It  can  rescue  the  believer 
from  this  judgment  of  God  upon  his  sin.  Paul  did  not  ex- 
pect the  flow  of  God's  wrath  against  the  world  to  change  any 
more  than  we  may  expect  a  change  in  gravity ;  he  knew  that 
that  burning  torrent  would  continue  to  the  end  (2  Thess.  i. 
6-9) ;  but  he  was  also  assured  that  through  Jesus  Christ  men 
could  be  snatched  from  this  flood  and  reconciled  to  the  God 
whose  wrath  was  once  upon  them.  God  himself  so  loved  the 
world  against  which  his  anger  burns— the  contradiction  is  too 
great  for  human  understanding— that  he  sent  a  life-boat  into 
the  judgment-tide  that  he  himself  created.  The  tide  will  not 
leave  the  world,  but  men  may  leave  the  tide ;  he  will  save 
them  that  beHeve.     When  Israel  rebelled  against  God  in  the 


(I  .23)  THE   OUTLOOK  29 

wilderness  (Num.  xxi.  4-9),  he  sent  fiery  serpents  among  them, 
that  bit  the  people,  "  and  much  people  of  Israel  died."  When 
in  repentance  they  prayed  that  God  would  "  take  away  the 
serpents,"  he  did  not  answer  them  in  this  form.  The  serpents 
were  not  taken  away.  God's  punishment  of  their  sin  could 
not  be  so  lightly  removed.  But  a  remedy  was  provided  in 
the  brazen  serpent  upon  the  pole,  so  that  **he  who  looked 
upon  it "  lived.  Who  would  esteem  the  remedy  if  the  judg- 
ment of  the  presence  of  the  serpents  could  be  removed?  The 
cross  and  the  resurrection  are  as  great  an  outrage  to  human 
wisdom  as  is  the  serpent  upon  the  pole ;  but  when  men  learn 
that  there  is  no  other  escape  from  the  wrath  of  God,  they  will 
not  be  "  ashamed "  of  the  gospel.  No  reform  can  perma- 
nently succeed,  for  God  never  ceases  to  punish  the  world's  sin 
with  sin.  Therefore  the  gospel  is  glorious,  for  it,  and  it  alone 
(Acts  iv.  12),  is  God's  power  for  salvation. 


CHAPTER    II 

THE    JEWS    EQUALLY    GUILTY    WITH    THE    GENTILES 

In  depicting  the  sin  of  the  Gentile  in  the  first  chapter,  Paul 
did  not  name  him.  It  was  not  necessary.  The  picture  was 
so  true  to  life  that  no  one  could  fail  to  see  who  sat  for  it. 
The  author  has  been  assured  more  than  once  by  returned  mis- 
sionaries from  China  and  India  that  when  this  first  chapter 
was  read  to  intelligent  natives  of  these  heathen  lands  they 
have  hesitated  to  believe  that  it  was  from  the  missionary's 
sacred  Book,  suspecting  that  the  missionary  had  written  it 
himself  as  a  description  of  what  he  had  seen  since  he  came 
among  them. 

In  this  second  chapter  Paul  has  no  one  but  the  Jew  in  view. 
He  does  not  mention  his  name  until  the  discussion  has  ad- 
vanced some  distance.  It  was  easy  to  prove  the  Gentile  a 
sinner.  He  claimed  nothing  for  himself,  and  his  immorality 
was  patent  to  every  eye ;  Paul  had  only  to  point  to  the  facts. 
But  in  the  case  of  the  Jew  all  was  different.  He  had  a  di- 
vinely given  system  of  rehgion.  In  the  letter  it  was  never 
better  observed  than  when  Paul  wrote.  The  Jew  as  a  son  of 
Abraham  considered  himself  righteous  by  the  law.  To  con- 
vince him  of  sin  was  no  easier  than  it  is  to-day  to  convince  a 
hollow  Christianity  of  its  fatal  error.  Paul  has  still  his  state- 
ment in  view,  that  the  gospel  is  the  only  power  of  God  for 
salvation,  and  nothing  to  be  ashamed  of.  If  Judaism  can 
save  men,  the  gospel  is  an  impertinence;  hence  the  radical 
failure  of  the  Jew  must  be  shown. 

30 


(II.  1-2)       JEWS  EQUALL  V  GUILTY  WITH  GENTILES       31 

Before  he  directly  assails  the  Jew  Paul  lays  down  in  verses 
I -1 6  of  this  chapter  the  principles  of  the  judgment.  These 
are  four,  found  in  verses  2,  6,  11,  16.  The  judgment  will  be 
according  to  "  truth  "  (verse  2),  according  to  "  deeds  "  (verse 
6),  without  "respect  of  persons"  (verse  11),  and  "according 
to  my  gospel"  (verse  16).  This  section  (verses  1-16)  consti- 
tutes what  is  virtually  an  indisputable  major  premise.  Hence 
but  one  of  the  points  (verse  1 1 )  is  argued. 

\^  "  Inexcusable,  O  man,  whosoever  thou  art  that  judgest." 
This  verse  comes  as  a  deduction  from  the  preceding  section 
about  the  Gentile.  At  the  first  blush  it  seems  to  be  illogical, 
for  the  inference  is  wider  than  the  premise.  Paul  has  proved 
the  Gentile  a  sinner  amenable  to  God's  wrath,  and  now  he 
seems  to  infer  that  every  other  man  is  so  if  he  judges.  But 
the  failure  in  logic  is  only  momentary,  for  he  at  once  adds 
that  he  who  judges  does  the  "  same  things  "  that  he  condemns 
in  the  wicked  heathen.  This  is  the  proposition  to  be  proved 
in  this  chapter.  A  part  of  the  Jew's  righteousness  consisted 
in  condemning  the  Gentile  (Gal.  ii.  15),  and  Paul,  well  aware 
of  this,  wrote  the  sentence  in  this  form  to  suggest  what  reader 
was  aimed  at.  The  verse,  then,  contains  both  an  inference 
and  a  proposition.  The  inference  is  true;  the  proposition 
will  be  proved  so  when  the  four  principles  of  the  judgment  in 
which  all  must  stand  are  unfolded. 

2«  A  better  rendering  of  the  phrase  "  we  are  sure  "  is  "  we 
know " — know  that  the  judgment  of  God  is  according  to 
truth.  The  connection  is  in  contrast  with  man's  partial 
judgment  mentioned  just  before.  Truth  here  has  a  shade  of 
meaning  different  from  that  in  i.  18,  25.  There  it  means 
the  revealed  fact,  that  which  is  known  about  God ;  here  it 
means  the  actual  condition  of  the  man  judged — just  what  he 
is.  When  gold  is  assayed,  the  test  considers  only  the  metal 
which  is  under  it ;  it  does  not  ask  whence  it  came,  whose  it  is, 
but  what  it  is,     God's  judgment  proceeds  on  just  what  the  man 


32  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (II.  3-5) 

or  the  deed  before  him  is  in  itself,  apart  from  birth  or  race  or 
rehgious  connection. 

3»  The  second  verse  begins  with  "we  know."  What  is 
known  requires  no  proof.  The  statement  of  verse  2  is  self- 
evident.  Hence  the  connection  is  not  in  the  way  of  argu- 
ment; it  is  rather  an  appeal  against  a  false  and  perilous 
reckoning.  You  do  the  very  things  you  condemn  in  others, 
but  irrationally  think  that  you  will  escape  their  punishment. 
This  delusive  self-estimation  is  always  found  in  the  false  re- 
ligionist. 

4*  The  case  may  be  worse  than  a  vain,  false  estimate ;  the 
man  may  despise  God's  means  to  win  him  to  a  better  life. 
Against  this  contempt  the  apostle  makes  another  appeal,  that 
ends  in  a  solemn  warning.  God  has  not  only  shown  some 
"  goodness  "  to  the  Jew ;  he  has  been  rich  therein.  He  chose 
the  Jew  in  the  past ;  his  providence  watched  over  him ;  he  sent 
him  great  kings  and  prophets,  and  finally  the  Messiah,  and 
made  him  the  leading  nation  of  the  world.  Toward  the  Jew's 
waywardness  and  un thankfulness  God  was  patient  ("forbear- 
ance ").  This  patience  extended  not  only  over  all  the  former 
times  of  Jewish  history,  but  especially  in  the  latter  years  when 
the  Messiah  was  rejected  and  his  messengers  slain.  It  is  this 
continued  patience  which  is  called  "  long-suffering."  All  this 
goodness  the  Jew  despised,  looking  upon  it  as  his  desert,  and 
ignoring  the  fact  that  it  ought  to  lead  him  to  repentance. 
The  case  is  going  hard  against  the  Jew,  though  he  is  not  yet 
named.  The  Gentile  had  none  of  this  mercy  to  move  him, 
and  yet  was  a  condemned  sinner ;  the  Jew  had  it,  and  treated 
it  with  contempt.     What  is  he? 

5.  This  verse  answers.  In  accordance  with  ("after")  his 
hardness  and  impenitence  of  heart,  though  judgment  did  not 
at  once  come,  he  was  heaping  up  for  himself  daily  a  treasure 
of  wrath  in  that  treasury  of  wrath,  the  day  of  the  righteous 
judgment  of  God.     The  blackest  of  sins  is  not  rights  violated, 


(11.  6-10)    JEWS  MQUALL  Y  GUILTY  WITH  GENTILES      33 

but  mercies  despised,  and  such  sins  were  accumulating  against 
the  Jew  on  that  record  which  can  neither  be  evaded  nor  dis- 
puted. God's  is  called  "  righteous  "  judgment  to  contrast  it 
with  the  Jew's. 

6*  After  this  solemn  appeal  under  the  first  principle  of  the 
judgment,  Paul  brings  in  the  second,  "to  every  man  accord- 
ing to  his  deeds."  This  really  constitutes  the  closing  sentence 
in  the  appeal,  and  thus  shows  that  a  judgment  according  to 
truth  and  a  judgment  according  to  works  or  "  deeds "  are 
practically  the  same  thing.  The  former  is  abstract;  the 
measure  applied  in  the  judgment  will  be  reahty.  This  (verse 
6)  is  concrete.  That  which  is  measured  will  be  what  is  done, 
"deeds."  The  judgment  will  embrace  "every  one."  That 
there  is  to  be  a  judgment  was  not  denied  by  the  Jew ;  it  can- 
not be  denied  by  any  sober  man ;  and  therefore  Paul  brings 
no  proof  in  evidence.  In  that  judgment,  sure  to  come,  God 
will  render  to  every  man  according  to  his  deeds. 

7- to.  The  first  principle  was  followed  by  an  appeal.  This 
second  one  is  followed  by  an  appositional  sentence  in  exposi- 
tion of  what  "deeds"  appear  in  the  judgment,  and  their 
awards.  It  is  quietly  implied  that  there  are  but  two  classes 
of  men,  and  consequently  but  two  kinds  of  deeds.  These  are 
set  forth  in  a  striking  antithetical  parallel,  as  is  shown  by  the 
Rev.  John  Forbes,  LL.D.  ("  Analyt.  Com.,"  pp.  7,  146),  from 
whom  we  adapt : 

"  Who  will  render  to  every  man  according  to  his  deeds  : 
:.   To  them  who  by  patient  continuance  in  well-doing 
[character] 
Seek  for  glory  and  honor  and  immortality  [pursuit]. 
Eternal  life  [award] : 

But  unto  them  that  are  contentious  [character]. 
And  do  not  obey  the  truth,  but  obey  unrighteousness 
[pursuit], 
6.   Indignation  [shall  be]  and  wrath  [award], 


34  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS        (11.  7-10) 

r'].  Tribulation  and  anguish  [award], 

c^  <  8.   Upon  every  soul  of  man  that  doeth  evil  [pursuit] ; 

V9.   Of  the  Jew  first,  and  also  of  the  Gentile  [character] ; 
^    r\o.  But  glory,  honor,  and  peace  [award], 

%  <  II.  To  every  man  that  worketh  good  [pursuit] ; 
^  V12.  To  the  Jew  first,  and  also  to  the  Gentile  [character]." 
There  is  a  wealth  of  parallehsm  here  which  nothing  but 
careful  inspection  can  discover.  The  thought  is  given  in  four 
triplets,  balanced  against  one  another.  The  first  two  are,  "  in- 
troversively,"  paralleled  with  the  second  two,  and  the  lines  in 
each  pair  of  triplets  show  the  same  feature.  This  gives  us 
first  the  statements  about  the  "  good  "  and  the  "  bad,"  followed 
by  similar  statements  about  each  party  in  the  reverse  order, 
the  reversal  being  not  only  in  the  triplets,  but  in  the  lines  com- 
posing them.  The  three  hnes  in  each  stanza,  for  such  they 
may  be  called,  give  first  the  character,  then  the  pursuits,  and 
finally  the  appropriate  awards,  both  of  the  good  and  of  the 
bad.  This  is  the  order  in  the  first  couplet.  In  the  second 
couplet  we  have  it  reversed  :  first  the  award,  secondly  the  pur- 
suit, and  thirdly  the  character.  In  the  very  first  line  of  the 
first  couplet  we  have  character  in  the  patient  continuance  of 
well-doing ;  the  pursuit  is  glory,  the  award  is  eternal  life.  This 
is  followed  in  the  second  stanza  by  the  opposite  kind  of  char- 
acter: contentious,  exhibiting  itself  in  an  opposite  kind  of 
pursuit,  obedience  to  unrighteousness,  with  its  opposite  award, 
indignation  and  wrath.  In  the  third  stanza  Paul  takes  these  up 
in  the  reverse  order  and  goes  over  them  again :  the  sad  award 
of  tribulation  and  wrath  for  him  who  in  his  pursuit  "doeth  evil," 
whether  in  character  Jew  or  Gentile,  and  the  glorious  award  of 
honor  and  peace  for  him  who  in  his  pursuit  "  worketh  good," 
whether  in  character  Jew  or  Gentile. 

By  this  parallelism  richness  of  exposition  is  gained,  both  by 
the  repetition  and  the  contrast  of  the  lines.  The  exposition 
of  the  "deeds"  is  given  in  two  opposite  directions:  first  from 


(II.  1 1)      JEIVS  EQUALL  V  GUILTY  WITH  GENTILES         35 

the  character  of  the  doer,  through  his  work  up  to  his  award, 
and,  conversely,  beginning  with  the  award,  we  ^o  back  through 
the  work  and  reach  the  character. 

In  this  appositional  unfolding  of  the  deeds  we  see  they  are 
more  than  mere  acts.  They  embrace  both  the  character  and 
the  aim  of  the  doer.  Every  deed  has  three  elements:  the 
source  from  which  it  comes,  the  aim,  and  the  concrete  act. 
The  deeds,  then,  are,  first  of  all,  deeds  of  the  heart,  patience, 
and  a  right  aim  on  one  side,  and  contentiousness  and  disobe- 
dience of  the  truth  on  the  other.  And  thus  it  is  seen  that  the 
second  principle  of  the  judgment,  an  award  according  to 
"deeds,"  is  pretty  much  the  same  as  the  first,  an  award  ac- 
cording to  "  truth,"  or  what  a  man  is. 

Some  difficulty  has  been  found  as  to  the  harmony  between 
this  principle  of  the  judgment  and  the  doctrine  of  salvation  by 
faith.  This  difficulty  arises  from  a  misconception  of  Paul's 
view  of  faith.  He  is  not  'speaking  here  of  faith's  beginning, 
but  of  its  completion ;  not  of  justification,  but  of  judgment. 
The  deeds  that  gain  a  reward  clearly  imply  faith  in  him  who 
does  them.  For  in  the  opposite  side  of  the  parallel  indigna- 
tion and  wrath  are  said  to  come  to  those  who  do  not  obey 
the  truth,  but  obey  unrighteousness;  that  is,  this  sad  award 
comes  to  them  as  a  result  of  their  unbelief.  Moreover,  Paul 
saw  no  contradiction  here,  for  he  closes  the  discussion  (verse 
1 6)  with  the  declaration  that  the  judgment  will  be  according 
to  his  ("my")  gospel. 

n*  This  is  the  third  principle  which  will  hold  in  the  judg- 
ment— "  no  respect  of  persons."  Paul  had  said  that  men  would 
be  rewarded  according  to  their  deeds,  whether  they  were  Jews 
having  the  law  or  Gentiles  excluded  from  the  law.  This  verse 
comes  in  as  a  reason  for  that  statement.  God  will  not  in- 
quire in  the  judgment  about  a  man's  outward  religious  con- 
nection. If  his  deeds  are  right,  his  being  a  Gentile  will  be  no 
detriment;  if  they  are  wrong,  his  being  a  Jew  will  be  no 


36  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS      (II.  12-14) 

excuse.  This  phrase  about  respect  of  persons  is  used  in  the 
Bible  only  in  connection  with  judgment,  and  so  here  it  is 
hmited  to  this  single  point.  It  will  not  serve  a  man  in  that 
awful  day  to  claim  that  he  was  an  adherent  of  a  true  system 
of  doctrine. 

\2*  The  "for"  at  the  head  of  this  verse  introduces  it  not 
as  a  proof, — that  comes  later, — but  as  an  explanation  of  what 
Paul  means  by  the  words  "no  respect  of  persons."  Those 
who  sinned  without  law— men  can  sin  where  there  is  no  written 
law — shall  also  perish  without  law.  Men  can  sin  and  perish, 
too,  where  God's  Word  was  never  heard ;  but  they  will  per- 
ish "without  law,"  that  is,  without  such  penalties  as  must 
meet  those  who  knew  the  law  and  did  not  do  it.  And  as  many 
as  have  sinned  in  the  law  (of  Moses)  shall  not  be  saved,  but 
judged  by  that  law. 

J3*  The  "for"  brings  in  a  proof  of  the  last  statement.  A 
man  may  hear  the  law  read  every  Sabbath  day  in  the  syna- 
gogue, but  if  he  does  not  do  the  things  enjoined  by  it  he  fails. 
For  the  only  virtue  in  hearing  the  law  lies  in  hearing  to  do. 
This  is  exceedingly  simple.  A  child  might  hear  his  parent's 
command,  might  admire  the  clearness  of  his  voice  and  the 
perspicuity  of  his  words,  but  what  of  this  approval  if  he  did 
not  obey  and  do  as  told?  The  child  could  not  be  held  just. 
In  these  two  verses,  1 2  and  13,  substitute  "  gospel  "  for  "  law  " 
in  reading  them,  and  they  present  the  truth  and  the  admoni- 
tion suited  to  modern  times. 

J4^  "For  when  Gentiles  [omit  "the"],  which  have  not  the 
[written]  law."  This  verse  clearly  shows  that  hearing  or  hav- 
ing a  holy  law  cannot  recommend  a  people  to  God.  It  is  a 
proof  of  the  statement  in  verse  13.  The  argument  Hes  in  this, 
that  Gentiles  have  what  is  tantamount  to  the  moral  law.  If 
having  a  law  will  save  the  Jews,  why  should  the  Gentiles  not 
also  be  saved?  This  is  an  ad  hommeiti  thrust.  It  struck  at  a 
vital  part  in  the  Jew's  prejudices.     If  he  claims  immunity  be- 


(11.15,16)   JEWS  EQUALLY  GUILTY  WITH  GENTILES      37 

cause  of  his  law,  the  Gentile  is  equally  safe ;  but  that  a  Gen- 
tile as  such  could  be  saved  the  Jew  would  not  for  one  moment 
admit. 

It  must  have  been  generally  known  that  there  were  among 
the  Gentiles  at  least  some  who  "  by  nature  "  did  the  things  of 
the  law,  pure  men  who  knew  the  right  and  loved  it,  who  looked 
upon  God  as  one  and  a  person.  Noah  and  Melchizedek, 
Abraham  and  Job,  are  examples. 

15.  This  verse  merely  continues  the  thought  of  the  last — 
that  Gentiles  are  not  devoid  of  that  in  which  the  Jew  boasts 
and  trusts.  The  Gentiles'  conscience  bears  testimony  to  this 
fact  along  with  their  works.  Their  inward  thoughts  are  in 
constant  debate  one  with  another,  one  thought  accusing  or 
else  excusing  another.  How  could  this  be  unless  some  stan- 
dard of  right  and  wrong  existed  by  nature  among  the  heathen? 

It  must  be  noted  that  Paul  does  not  say  that  the  heathen 
have  the  law  written  on  their  heart,  for  this  is  the  character- 
istic blessing  under  the  new  covenant  (Heb.  viii.  lo).  God 
in  regenerating  grace  certainly  gives  something  more  than  that 
which  the  heathen  already  have.  Paul  says  they  show  not  the 
law,  but  its  "  work,"  written  on  their  heart.  A  machine  may 
show  the  work  of  inteUigence,  but  it  has  none. 

Again,  while  Paul  asserts  that  Gentiles  may  have  what  is 
equivalent  to  the  law,  he  does  not  say  that  they  are  saved  by 
that  possession  or  that  they  can  be ;  rather  the  reverse,  that  if 
the  Jew  can  be  saved  by  his  law,  why  not  the  Gentile  by  that 
which  belongs  to  him?  The  discussion  comes  to  just  this: 
that  the  Jew  in  his  claim  for  his  law  is  claiming  too  much. 
If  the  law  will  save  him,  is  not  the  Gentile  saved  too?  For 
he  has  virtually  the  same.  Paul  would  drive  the  Jew  from 
his  false  mooring  and  leave  him  at  sea.  There  is  nothing  else 
even  by  implication  in  the  argument. 

16*  This  verse  lays  down  the  fourth  principle.  Paul  says, 
"  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men  .  .  .  according  to  my  gos- 


38  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE   ROMANS  (II.  i6) 

pel."  The  connection  is  not  with  the  twelfth,  as  some  editions 
of  the  King  James  version  would  indicate  by  their  parentheses, 
but  with  the  thirteenth  verse.  Verses  14  and  15,  containing 
the  argument  for  the  third  principle,  are  parenthetic.  Without 
the  interruption  of  this  proof  matter,  the  thought  runs :  **  The 
doers  of  the  law  shall  be  justified  in  the  day  when  God  shall 
judge  the  secrets  of  men." 

Here  we  learn  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  justify  "  on  its 
first  occurrence  in  the  epistle,  for  surely  God  will  not  at  the 
judgment-hour  make  these  good  who  have  already  shown 
themselves  good  by  being  doers  of  the  law.  The  word  can- 
not mean  "  to  make,"  but  "  to  declare  good." 

We  have  seen  above,  under  verse  6,  that  the  "  deeds  "  are 
largely  deeds  of  the  heart.  Hence  Paul  speaks  here  about 
judging  the  "secrets"  of  men.  Only  the  doers  of  the  law 
will  pass  the  judgment,  but  the  law  is  not  done  in  God's  sight 
except  by  the  incarnation  of  it  in  the  heart.  Paul  is  in  strict 
harmony  with  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  The  deeds  to  be 
judged  are  not  alone  those  which  are  seen  in  the  life,  but 
those  which  God  sees  in  the  hidden  chambers  of  the  inner 
man. 

"  According  to  my  gospel."  There  is  no  antithesis  between 
law  and  gospel  when  both  are  rightly  understood.  When  Paul 
says  "  my  "  gospel  he  indicates  the  broad  and  universal  turn 
which  he  has  given  to  it,  unfolding  it  in  a  way  suited  to  men 
of  every  age  and  nation.  It  had  its  origin  in  one  nation,  but 
it  is  not  a  national  gospel ;  it  is  world-wide.  Paul's  keenest 
weapon  against  the  narrow  Jewish  error  lies  in  this  word 
"  gospel."  The  judgment  will  not  be  according  to  law,  which 
by  the  Jewish  interpretation  left  relation  to  Christ  out,  but  ac- 
cording to  the  gospel,  which  makes  relation  to  him  the  chief 
factor  in  the  judgment.  The  gospel  is  the  standard  of  judg- 
ment ;  the  Judge,  the  day,  the  deed,  the  standard.  The  Judge 
is  just,  the  day  is  certain,  the  deed  is  known,  the  standard  is 


(II.  i7-2ia)  JEIVS  EQUALLY  GUILTY  WITH  GENTILES     39 

the  gospel.  God  judges,  but  Jesus  Christ  holds  the  court. 
"  He  hath  committed  all  judgment  unto  the  Son  "  (John  v. 
2  2  ;  Acts  xvii.  31). 

Having  now  unfolded  these  four  principles  of  the  judgment, 
Paul  speaks  directly  to  the  Jew  in  what  may  be  called  the 
minor  premise  in  the  argument  (verses  17-24).  The  major 
premise  comes  to  this :  that  the  judgment  is  of  such  a  charac- 
ter that  sinners,  no  matter  who  they  are,  Jew  or  Gentile,  can- 
not stand  in  it.  This  minor  premise  shows  the  Jew  that  he  is 
a  sinner,  but  the  proposition  which  embraces  both  premises  is 
that  the  Jew  who  judges  the  Gentile  does  the  same  things. 
In  proof  of  this,  Paul  proceeds  in  the  method  used  in  the  first 
chapter  against  the  Gentile :  first,  that  he  knew  the  truth,  but, 
secondly,  refused  it,  and  so,  finally,  fell  into  the  sin  of  idolatry, 
sensuality,  and  general  immorality.  We  have  the  same  method 
and  the  same  three  sins. 

\  7-20,  These  verses  show  what  light  the  Jew  had,  the  light 
not  of  nature  only,  but  the  clearer  revelation  of  the  law.  In 
five  particulars  he  claimed  personal  privileges  above  other  men : 
"restest  in  the  law,"  "makest  thy  boast  of  God,"  ''knowest 
his  will,"  "  approvest  the  things  that  are  more  excellent,"  and 
"  instructed  out  of  the  law."  In  five  other  particulars  the  Jew 
was  "confident"  that  his  knowledge  was  superior  to  that  of 
the  Gentile.  He  claimed  to  be  "a  guide  of  the  blind,"  "a 
light  of  them  which  are  in  darkness,"  "  an  instructor  of  the 
foolish,"  "  a  teacher  of  babes,"  having  "  the  form  of  knowledge 
and  of  the  truth  in  the  law."  In  these  ten  items  of  the  Jew's 
superiority  the  law  is  mentioned  three  times.  On  this  point 
of  knowledge  Paul  merely  declares  of  the  Gentile  that  he  had 
it  (i.  18-21),  but  when  it  comes  here  to  the  Jew  he  convinces 
him  out  of  his  own  mouth.  It  was  the  Jew's  claim  and  boast 
that  he  knew. 

2Ia»  In  the  beginning  of  verse  17  it  should  read,  not  "Be- 
hold," but  "  If  thou  art  called,"  etc.     It  begins  the  first  mem- 


40  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  kOMAh'S      (II.  213,22) 

ber  of  a  conditional  sentence,  the  second  member  of  which  is 
found  in  the  first  question  of  the  verse  before  us.  Paul  does 
not  assert ;  he  only  asks  a  question,  a  question  that  can  have 
but  one  answer:  If  you  are  a  Jew,  claiming  full  qualification 
to  teach  blind  Gentiles,  do  you  not  thereby  teach  yourself? 
Do  you  not  k?ww?  This  is  the  first  point  in  proving  that  the 
Jew  "  does  the  same  things  "  as  the  Gentile.  He  knows  God, 
yea,  by  his  own  confession  he  knows  vastly  more  than  the  de- 
spised Gentile. 

2\hf  22*  The  Jew  had  all  the  means  extant  in  his  time  of 
knowing  God's  will.  The  verses  now  in  hand  show  his  sad 
failure  in  doing  that  will.  Paul  does  not  assert  that  the  Jew 
was  guilty  of  these  three  sins  of  idolatry,  sensuality,  and  im- 
morality ;  he  puts  it  significantly  in  the  interrogative  form. 
This  means  that  his  questions  could  have  but  one  answer.  In 
the  first  chapter,  in  dealing  with  the  Gentile,  he  proceeds  from 
idolatry  to  immorality.  This  order  is  reversed  in  the  case  be- 
fore us.  He  proceeds  from  immorahty,  "Dost  thou  steal?" 
to  idolatry,  "Dost  thou  commit  sacrilege?  "  or,  to  follow  the 
Revised  Version,  "Dost  thou  rob  [heathen]  temples?"  This 
change  in  the  order  is  easily  accounted  for.  In  the  first  chap- 
ter Paul  is  giving  the  origin  and  development  of  sin  among 
men  ;  he  follows  the  natural  order.  But  when  it  comes  to  the 
Jew  he  writes  climactically.  Idolatry  was  forbidden  by  the 
very  first  commandment.  The  Jew  claimed  to  be  free  from 
it  and  professed  to  abhor  it ;  and  yet  Paul  more  than  intimates 
that  he  is  guilty  of  this  foolish,  debasing  crime,  the  worst  of 
all  sins.     He  mentions  it  last  because  it  is  blackest. 

There  is  not  sufficient  information  to-day  to  show  what  is 
meant  by  Paul's  allusion  to  the  robbing  of  temples.  In  his 
day  the  Jews  did  not  actually  worship  idols,  and  he  does  not 
charge  them  with  the  sin  in  this  form.  But  it  seems  that  they 
did  not  hesitate,  in  the  various  heathen  lands  in  which  they 
lived,  to  purloin  the  treasures  deposited  in  these  temples  (Acts 


(II.  23-25)  JEWS  EQUALL  V  GUILTY  WITH  GENTILES       41 

xix.  37)  and  to  take  the  accursed  stuff  (Deut.  vii.  25,  26)  into 
their  own  houses. 

23*  Twice  now  Paul  mentions  the  hght-giving  law,  which, 
with  the  question  asked,  "  Dishonorest  thou  God?  "  condenses 
into  one  compact,  condemning  whole  all  that  has  been  said  be- 
ginning with  verse  17.  The  verse  does  not  advance  the  argu- 
ment ;  it  sharpens  it  and  brings  it  to  a  focus  in  the  word  "  dis- 
honorest." This  is  the  odiousness  of  all  sin ;  it  tarnishes  the 
glory  of  God's  name. 

24^  Five  questions  have  just  been  asked,  the  first  expanded 
in  the  next  three,  and  the  last  condensing  them  again  to  an 
arrow-point;  but  Paul  does  not  directly  answer  them.  But 
this  twenty-fourth  verse,  beginning  with  *'  for,"  gives  a  reason 
for  asking  them,  and  that  reason  is  the  answer.  It  must  be 
that  they  are  guilty  under  these  three  counts,  for,  just  as  Isaiah 
wrote  long  ago  (lii.  5),  God's  name  is  blasphemed  among  the 
Gentiles  because  of  the  Jews.  The  latter  claimed  to  be  a  holy 
people  knowing  the  true  God,  and  the  heathen  among  whom 
they  dwelt  did  not  stop  with  contempt  of  them  for  their  hy- 
pocrisy; they  exhibited  that  contempt  toward  God  himself. 
Says  Beet  ("  Commentary,"  /;/  loc.) :  "  Men  around  think  less 
of  God  because  this  man  hves  among  them  and  calls  himself 
a  disciple  of  God.  It  were  more  for  the  glory  of  God,  and 
therefore  for  the  good  of  those  who  know  this  man,  if  he  were 
a  professed  heathen." 

Thus  far  Paul  has  shown  that  the  Jew  is  a  sinner  like  the 
Gentile.  The  next  step  will  be  to  drive  him  from  his  refuge 
in  the  rite  of  circumcision.  This  was  the  outward  mark  which 
distingm'shed  the  Jew  from  his  heathen  neighbor  and  showed 
him  to  be  a  descendant  of  Abraham. 

25#  ''  For  .  .  .  thy  circumcision  is  made  uncircumcision." 
This  first  mention  of  the  rite  in  the  epistle  comes  in  abruptly 
and  therefore  starthngly.  The  "  for  "  introduces  the  discussion 
as  a  confirmation  of  what  was  said  in  the  two  previous  verses. 


42  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS    (11.  26,  27) 

You  dishonor  God  and  lead  the  Gentiles  to  despise  him,  for 
your  circumcision  is  no  advantage  to  you. 

Circumcision  profits  if  one  keeps  the  law,  for  it  was  not  in- 
tended to  be  an  atonement  for  wrong  living,  but  a  spur  to- 
ward right  living.  It  is  a  seal,  and  what  is  the  value  of  a  seal 
when  torn  from  that  which  it  was  intended  to  certify?  To  be 
content  with  the  rite  while  neglecting  that  for  which  it  stood 
is  to  behave  like  him  who  should  take  a  money  sign  ($,  ^) 
for  the  money  itself.  By  wrong  living  circumcision  failed  of 
its  object  and  became  uncircumcision,  or  exclusion  from  son- 
ship  with  Abraham. 

26*  **  Therefore."  Here  is  a  fair  deduction.  If  the  aim 
of  circumcision  was  uprightness,  and  if  a  heathen  exhibited  the 
latter — if  he  has  the  substance,  what  odds  if  he  lack  the  sign? 
Bullion  is  gold,  though  it  has  no  government  stamp  upon  it. 
In  the  scales  of  the  judgment  whose  principles  have  been  so 
clearly  laid  down,  will  he  who  has  the  rite  without  the  right- 
eousness outweigh  him  who  has  righteousness  without  the  rite? 
This  question  needs  no  answer. 

27»  This  verse  also  comes  in  under  the  "  therefore  "  above. 
"  By  the  letter,"  etc.,  ought  to  read  ''  with  the  letter,"  invested 
with  the  letter  of  the  law  and  with  circumcision.  Would  that 
be  a  judgment  "  according  to  truth  "  in  which  he  who  had  the 
law  and  the  rite  should  stand  after  having  transgressed  both, 
while  the  upright  man  who  never  had  either  must  fall?  Will 
the  sinner  who  has  the  law  pass  where  the  righteous  man  will 
fail  because  he  has  not  what  never  was  given  to  him?  Yes, 
if  God  were  seeking  legal  rather  than  real  obedience.  But 
since  the  latter  is  his  delight,  the  man  who  has  it  under  the 
disadvantage  of  no  law  will  be  a  burning  condemnation  to 
him  who,  despite  the  law  to  teach  him,  has  failed  to  hear 
its  voice.  Cornelius  far  outweighs  Caiaphas ;  for  Caiaphas 
with  his  circumcision  was  at  heart  one  with  heathen  Pilate 
against  Jesus,  while  Cornehus  without  circumcision  was  at  one 
with  Peter  in  following  truth. 


(II.  28,  29)  JEIVS  EQUAL L  V  GUILTY  WITH  GENTILES      43 

The  principle  involved  in  these  three  verses  is  that  a  reli- 
gious rite  is  worthless  unless  it  is  attended  with  goodness — 
"  Patient  continuance  in  well-doing."  (See  also  John  viii.  31.) 
And  this  principle  is  solemnly  applicable  to-day  in  the  matter 
of  baptism.  Read  the  passage  above,  substituting  '*  baptism  " 
and  "  no  baptism  "  for  "  circumcision  "  and  "  uncircumcision  " 
respectively,  and  the  verses  become  modern. 

28,  29*  In  describing,  as  Paul  does  here,  the  real  Jew,  that 
he  must  be  such  at  heart  in  that  which  is  within,  Paul  is  in 
harmony  with  his  fourth  principle  of  the  judgment.  God  will 
not  look  on  that  which  is  outward,  but  will  judge  the  "  secrets  " 
of  men.  That  circumcision  must  be  of  the  heart  was  not 
Paul's  invention;  it  was  as  old  as  the  law  (Deut.  x.  16)  and 
the  prophets  (Ezek.  xHv.  9).  This  statement  of  what  consti- 
tutes the  veritable  Jew  is  made  in  justification  (''for")  of  the 
sentiments  in  verses  25-27.  If  verse  25  degraded  the  more 
formal  Jew  to  the  Gentile  level,  verse  28  tells  why;  and  if 
verses  26  and  27  elevated  the  good  heathen  above  the  profes- 
sional Jew,  verse  29  presents  the  substantial  reason.  He  who 
is  right  at  heart  is  in  God's  sight  a  Jew  even  though  he  can- 
not trace  his  fleshly  descent  from  Abraham.  He  is  not  a  Jew 
who  is  only  one  outwardly,  in  dress,  in  profession,  and  in  sub- 
jection to  ceremonials,  and  circumcision  is  not  accomplished 
with  a  sharp  knife ;  but  he  is  a  Jew  who  is  right  within,  where 
only  God  sees;  for  circumcision  pertains  first  of  all  to  the 
heart,  a  cutting  off  of  man  from  all  evil.  The  phrase  "  in  the 
spirit "  serves  to  define  the  word  "  heart."  The  man  must  not 
only  intend  right  in  his  heart,  but  he  must  be  right  in  his 
spirit.  Circumcision  is  not  effected  by  the  "  letter  "  of  the  law. 
Some  think,  however,  that  by  the  word  "  spirit "  Paul  means 
the  Holy  Spirit.  In  this  case  the  word  would  give  the  means 
rather  than  the  definition  of  a  genuine  circumcision,  and  it 
would  stand  in  antithesis  with  the  word  **  letter." 

This  second  chapter,  then,  in  showing  that  the  judgment 
is  concerned  wholly  with  character  and  not  at  all  with  the 


44  THE  EPISTLE    TO   THE   ROMANS    (II.  28,  29) 

outward  ceremonials  of  religion,  puts  the  immoral  Jew  among 
the  sinners  of  the  first  chapter,  because  he  does  the  same 
things,  and  his  Judaism  goes  for  nothing ;  circumcision  will 
not  shield  him.  But  Judaism  is  God-given,  and  it  is  God  who 
has  made  the  broad  distinction  between  circumcision  and 
uncircumcision,  a  distinction  which  Paul  seems  to  obliterate. 
This  starts  a  serious  objection  to  the  hne  of  argument,  and 
this  objection  is  noticed  in  the  beginning  of  the  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER    III 

THE  ARGUMENT  ON  SIN  CONCLUDED  (VERSES  I-2o),  AND  THE 
SECOND  MAIN  DIVISION  OF  THE  EPISTLE  —  RIGHTEOUS- 
NESS—BEGUN   (verses    21-31) 

(i)  Paul  answers  an  objection  (verses  1-8)  and  (2)  con- 
cludes with  a  scriptural  argument  for  the  universality  of  sin 
(verses  9-20).  Beginning  the  second  grand  division  of  the 
epistle,  (3)  the  righteousness  that  saves  is  described  (verses  21- 
26),  (4)  a  righteousness  that  excludes  the  Jew's  boasting  (verses 

27-31). 

J»  "What  advantage  then  hath  the  Jew?"  etc.  This  is 
one  of  the  profound  questions  of  the  epistle.  If  circumcision 
in  itself  does  not  give  righteousness,  if  uncircumcision  does 
not  preclude  it,  what  profit  was  there  ever  in  it?  A  distinc- 
tion that  God  made  among  men  seems,  after  all,  not  to  be 
one.  Paul  must  answer  this  objection  to  his  argument  for  the 
sinfulness  of  the  Jew.  He  does  this  fully  in  chapters  ix.-xi. 
Here  he  considers  it  only  briefly  and  only  so  far  as  it  blocks 
his  argument  about  sin.  His  readers,  especially  Jewish  ones, 
could  not  follow  him  another  step  until  this  hindrance  in  the 
line  of  thought  is  removed. 

In  asking  the  question,  "What  advantage  then  hath  the 
Jew?  "  of  course  he  does  not  mean  the  true  Jew  ethically,  de- 
scribed in  the  closing  verses  of  the  last  chapter,  but  the  Jew 

40 


46  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (III.  2) 

nationally.  What  is  the  profit  of  Judaism  if  in  itself  it  does 
not  save  from  sin  and  presents  no  advantages  over  heathen- 
ism? There  are  not  two  questions  in  this  verse;  the  repeti- 
tion is  a  Hebrew  parallel,  used  for  the  sake  of  perspicuity. 

2,  "  Much  every  way."  This  is  the  answer,  brief  and  un- 
mistakable. It  was  written  at  a  time  when  Christianity  was 
practically  established  all  over  the  Roman  empire.  There 
were  Christian  churches  everywhere,  and  yet  Paul  says  there 
is  much  "  advantage  "  in  Judaism.  For  centuries  the  religious 
world  has  overlooked  this  verse  and  has  thought  and  wrote  as 
if  Judaism  were  a  mere  relic  of  a  dead  past.  Paul  was  every- 
where planting  believing  communities  composed  of  Jews  and 
Gentiles — communities  in  which  these  and  all  other  distinc- 
tions disappeared  (Gal.  iii.  28) ;  and  yet  he  declares  the  Jew 
as  such  has  "much"  left  in  his  favor.  Has  Paul's  view  of 
the  matter  become  obsolete?  When  in  the  course  of  the  cen- 
turies after  Paul's  day  did  the  Jew  lose  his  advantage  over 
Gentile  Christianity? 

He  tells  in  what  the  advantage  lies.  It  is  not  that  Judaism 
prepared  the  way  for  something  better,  for  we  have  seen  that 
that  supposed  better  thing,  the  church,  was  already  in  exis- 
tence when  Paul  affirmed  the  superiority  of  the  Jew.  His  ad- 
vantage was  not  that  God  sowed  Judaism  and  the  world 
reaped  Christianity.  That  blots  out  Judaism.  It  was  first  of 
all  "that  unto  them  were  committed  the  oracles  of  God,"  not 
that  they  were  made  a  mere  Bible  depositary,  but  that  God 
gave  them,  as  Jews,  promises,  not  yet  fulfilled,  and  peculiarly 
their  own.  The  Old  Testament,  the  record  of  these  oracles, 
contains  not  one  promise  either  of  or  to  the  church  as  an  or- 
ganization. It  does  not  predict  a  church;  it  foreshadows  a 
kingdom  in  which  the  Jew  shall  be  head  and  not  lose  his 
national  distinction  as  he  does  in  the  church.  Dr.  Adolph 
Saphir,  himself  a  converted  Jew,  a  man  who  deserves  to  be 
better  known  both  for  his  profound  scriptural  knowledge  and 


(III.  3,  4)  -S-ZiV  CONCLUDED  47 

his  Christ-like  piety,  says :  "  The  view  that  is  so  prevalent,  that 
Israel  is  a  shadow  of  the  church,  and  now  that  the  type  is 
fulfilled  vanishes  from  our  horizon,  is  altogether  unscriptural. 
Israel  is  not  the  shadow  fulfilled  and  absorbed  /«  the  churchy 
but  the  basis  on  which  the  church  rests  (Rom.  xi.).  And  al- 
though, during  the  times  of  the  Gentiles,  Israel,  as  a  nation,  is 
set  aside,  Israel  is  not  cast  away,  because  Israel  is  not  a  tran- 
sitory and  temporary,  but  an  integral  part  of  God's  counsel. 
The  gifts  and  caUing  of  God  are  without  repentance.  Israel 
was  chosen  to  be  God's  people,  the  center  of  his  influence 
and  reign  on  earth  in  the  ages  to  come.  The  church  in  the 
present  parenthetic  period  does  not  supplant  them.  The 
book  of  the  kingdom  awaits  its  fulfilment,  and  the  church, 
instructed  by  Jesus  and  the  apostles,  is  not  ignorant  of  this 
mystery  "  ("  Christ  and  the  Scriptures,"  p.  64). 

3,  "  For  what  if  some  [Jews]  did  not  beheve?  "  The  "  for  " 
bears  on  the  assertion  that  the  Jew,  as  such,  has  much  advan- 
tage. In  spite  of  his  disbelief  of  the  gracious  promises  made 
exclusively  to  him  in  the  Old  Testament  oracles,  Paul  asserts 
his  superiority,  for  the  unbelief  of  "  some  "  will  not  make  God 
untrue  to  his  promises  to  the  nation.  As  God's  long-given 
promise  to  send  Israel  a  Redeemer  was  not  defeated  by  the 
nation's  deep  sin  and  hypocrisy,  so  his  promise  to  give  the 
nation  headship  cannot  be  made  void  by  their  disbehef  of  the 
promise.  He  who  could  give  unbeHeving  Israel  a  Saviour  can 
also  give  the  same  people  that  for  which  the  Saviour  came,  a 
universal  kingdom  of  righteousness. 

4»  To  the  question,  ''  Shall  their  unbeHef  make  the  faith 
[faithfulness]  of  God  without  effect?  "  Paul  replies  vehemently, 
"  Let  God  be  true,  but  every  man  a  ha,r."  Between  the  terms 
of  this  reply  and  those  in  the  preceding  verse  there  is  an  in- 
structive change.  There  he  said,  what  if  '*  some  "  disbeheved  ; 
here  he  answers,  let  "  every  man  "  do  so.  Again  the  unbe- 
liever there  is  in  this  verse  defined  as  a  "  liar,"  and  finally  the 


48  THE  EPISTLE    TO   THE  ROMANS  (III.  4) 

"  faith  "  of  God  is  reproduced  in  the  word  "  true."  What  if 
some  did  not  beheve  the  oracles  intrusted  to  them?  Shall 
tlieir  lying,  yea,  shall  the  lying  unbelief  of  the  whole  nation, 
so  turn  God  that  he  also  shall  not  be  true  to  his  own  oracles? 
Why  does  Paul  teach  that  an  unbeliever  is  a  liar?  It  is  easy 
to  see  how  his  unbelief  makes  God  a  liar  (i  John  v.  10). 
Unbelief  is  lying,  because  it  virtually  pronounces  unworthy  of 
trust  that  which  is  the  truth  of  God.  And  so  when  God 
eventually  makes  good  his  promises  to  the  nation,  not  only 
will  the  unbelievers  be  seen  to  be  liars,  but  God  will  be  "  jus- 
tified "  in  all  his  Old  Testament  sayings,  and  will  "  overcome  " 
when  he  is  judged,  for  he  was  misjudged.  In  such  an  hour — 
and  it  is  coming— his  faithfulness  to  his  promises  will  shine 
with  added  luster,  because  it  was  kept  with  those  utterly  un- 
worthy of  it.  If  Jesus  Christ  is  not  the  Son  of  God,  and  if 
through  him  the  Jewish  race  is  not  ultimately  redeemed,  then 
his  rejectors  are  the  world's  wise  men ;  but  if  God's  plain  but 
far-reaching  promises  are  made  good  by  him,  then  unbehevers 
will  be  found  Hars,  and  God's  glory  will  shine  the  brighter  on 
the  dark  background  of  their  unworthiness  and  sin. 

Paul  has  now  answered  the  Jew's  objection  which  arises 
from  placing  the  Jew  and  the  Gentile  on  the  same  level  in  the 
church.  For  the  present  there  is  no  advantage  in  circumci- 
sion except  the  possession  of  certain  national  promises  which 
the  Jew  alone  has.  The  answer  comes  to  this,  that  the  Jew 
must  not  confine  his  view  to  the  question  of  salvation  from  sin, 
where  indeed  he  is  on  the  same  plane  with  the  heathen,— trust 
in  Jesus;  nothing  else,  not  even  circumcision,  will  avail,— but 
he  must  remember  that  in  addition  to  this  salvation  God  has 
promised  him  a  high  place  of  honor  in  the  world.  Peter  and 
Cornehus  were  both  sinners,  the  one  circumcised,  the  other 
uncircumcised,  and  both  were  saved  from  sin  by  the  same 
means,  the  forgiving  grace  of  God.  So  far  they  are  alike,  but 
now  when  saved  Peter  is  made  an  apostle  and  Cornelius  is 


(III.   5,  6)  SIN  CONCLUDED  49 

not.  Here  is  a  difference.  And  neither  the  Old  Testament 
nor  the  New  can  be  thoroughly  understood  until  one  perceives 
the  analogous  likeness  and  difference  between  Jew  and  Gen- 
tile. They  are  saved  alike,  but  their  future  standing  in  the 
earth  is  not  alike. 

We  might  start  an  objection  here  not  noticed  by  Paul,  and 
most  likely  because  it  is  not  a  real  one.  To  what  Jews  will 
God  make  his  oracles  good  if  all  are  found  liars?  The  Scrip- 
ture quoted  here  from  the  experience  of  David  (Ps.  li.)  may 
answer.  It  was  not  until  he  was  given  penitence  for  his  sin 
that  he  could  say  of  that  very  sin  that  it  justified  God  in  his 
sayings  and  gave  him  victory  when  judged.  Repentant  Is- 
rael will  find  the  "  advantage,"  and  they  are  promised  repen- 
tance (Acts  v.  31  ;  Rom.  xi.  26). 

5»  But  while  Paul  does  not  notice  such  an  objection,  if  in- 
deed it  is  one,  he  does  see  a  real  hindrance  in  the  way  of  his 
argument.  It  does  not  come  in  abstractly.  The  context 
clearly  shows  that  Paul  had  actually  met  it  in  his  experience 
in  dealing  with  the  subtle,  wily  Jew.  You  have  shown,  says 
the  opponent,  that  God's  promises,  when  they  come  to  pass 
on  Israel,  will  appear  all  the  more  gracious  on  account  of  the 
nation's  previous  unbeHef.  Our  obstinacy  has  turned  out  to 
his  glory :  why  should  he  punish  us  for  that  which  has  been  a 
favor  to  him?  ''  If  our  unrighteousness  commend  the  right- 
eousness of  God,"  is  not  God  unjust  to  punish  us  for  that 
unrighteousness?  Paul  shrinks  in  placing  these  two  words 
"  God  "  and  '*  unrighteous  "  together,  and  declares  he  is  not 
speaking  as  a  believer,  but  as  a  ''  man." 

6»  His  reply  to  the  question  comes  at  one  blow— "Then 
how  shall  God  judge  the  world?  "  For  the  world  is  unright- 
eous too,  and  its  sin  makes  conspicuous  God's  love  toward  it. 
If  God  may  not  punish  the  Jew  for  the  reason  here  mentioned, 
neither  may  he  punish  the  Gentile,  for  the  same  reason  can  be 
urged  in  the  latter's  case.     And  so  all  judgment  is  at  an  end. 


50  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS       (III.  7-9) 

This  is  the  ad  hommetn  argument  again.  The  Jew  could 
not  admit  that  the  wicked  Gentile  world  could  go  unpunished. 

It  must  not  be  overlooked  that  Paul  does  not  let  this  dis- 
cussion of  sin  drift  away  from  the  hght  in  which  he  began  it 
— the  hght  of  the  judgment.  And  he  still  keeps  both  Jew  and 
Gentile  in  view.  Where  the  latter  can  find  no  cover,  neither 
can  the  former. 

7«  This  verse  does  not  advance  the  thought.  It  individu- 
alizes the  previous  statement  about  the  "  world."  The  world's 
sin  has  made  God's  mercy  toward  it  all  the  brighter,  and  so 
each  man  in  the  world  might  come  before  God  with  the  claim 
that  his  glory  had  been  advanced  by  the  man's  lie,  and  on 
this  ground  claim  exemption.  But  while  this  does  not  ad- 
vance the  argument,  it  quietly  intimates  that  not  a  single  sin- 
ner will  escape  the  judgment. 

8^  Paul  now  with  one  stroke  brings  the  whole  objection  to 
its  logically  absurd  conclusion.  If  sin  enhances  the  glory  of 
God,  and  therefore  is  no  longer  guilt,  why,  the  more  we  sin 
the  brighter  his  grace.  Let  us  do  all  the  evil  we  can,  for  the 
more  evil  the  more  praise  to  his  name!  Some  had  affirmed 
that  this  is  the  apostle's  own  doctrine.  In  their  righteous 
condemnation  of  it  they  condemn  themselves  in  the  claim 
that  God  cannot  punish  sin,  because  it  promotes  his  glory,  for 
this  claim  is  the  very  essence  of  the  hateful  sentiment.  And 
thus  he  has  come  around  in  most  skilful  fashion  to  the  asser- 
tion with  which  he  began  against  the  Jew :  *'  Thou  art  inex- 
cusable, O  man,  whosoever  thou  art  that  judgest :  for  wherein 
thou  judgest  another,  thou  condemiiest  thyself"  (ii.  i).  He 
joins  with  them  in  repudiating  the  godless  maxim,  but  he 
does  not  go  with  them  in  holding  it.  They  "  slanderously  re- 
port "  him  who  say  he  does. 

9«  Here  the  argument  (see  (2)  above)  from  Scripture  for  uni- 
versal sinfulness  begins.  In  the  words,  ''What  then?"  the 
whole  course  of  thought  from  the  beginning  (i.  18)  is  looked 


(III.  lo,  II)  SIN  CONCLUDED  51 

at,  as  much  as  to  say,  How  does  the  question  about  sin  stand 
now?  Whether  the  next  httle  sentence  should  be  rendered 
as  in  the  King  James  version,  "  Are  we  better  ?  "  or  as  some 
others,  '*  Have  we  an  excuse  ?  "  is  not  easily  decided.  The 
translation  of  the  Revised  Version  is  wide  of  the  mark.  The 
answer  to  the  question,  whatever  that  question  is,  shows  that 
Paul  now  has  both  parties  in  view,  both  Jew  and  Gentile. 
This  would  decide  against  the  King  James  rendering,  which 
can  embrace  only  the  Jewish  party.  In  looking  back  over  the 
argument,  as  the  little  interrogation,  "  What  then?  "  directs,  we 
see  that  Paul  has  argued  the  guilt  of  both  parties.  One  refuge 
after  another  was  beaten  down.  Does  any  remain?  Have 
we  an  excuse?  Is  there  no  refuge  for  men?  Then  comes  the 
sweeping  negative, ''  No,  in  no  wise,"  and  in  justification  of  this 
negative  he  refers  to  what  he  previously  said  about  both  Jew 
and  Gentile,  that  they  are  all  under  sin.  Note  that  he  does  not 
say  with  the  King  James  version  that  he  before  "proved  "  it ; 
for  while  he  has  made  it  very  evident,  the  clinching  proof 
comes  only  now,  and  it  comes  from  Scripture.  The  selections 
are  from  various  psalms,  from  the  prophets,  and  one  (verse 
15)  from  the  Book  of  Proverbs  (i.  16).  They  are  arranged 
to  give,  first,  the  character  of  men,  secondly,  their  conduct, 
and  finally,  the  cause  of  their  sin.  They  can  be  presented  to 
the  eye  thus : 

1.  Character  (verses  10-12). 

2.  Conduct  pP'.'^'=\(^^''^^^  '3,  14), 

(action  (verses  15-17). 

3.  Cause  (verse  18). 

J0»  "  None  righteous,  no,  not  one."  The  striking  little 
repetition  *'no,  not  one,"  makes  the  preceding  assertion  all- 
comprehensive.  In  the  divine  estimation  of  the  non-right- 
eousness of  the  race  there  is  not  a  single  exception. 

\\^  "None  that  understandeth."  The  apostle  taught  be- 
fore (i.  21,  22)  that  men  became  "fools."     They  did  "not 


52  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS    (III.  12-16) 

seek  after  God,"  though  they  sought  everything  else.  The 
word  "  seek  "  imphes  not  that  God  is  concealed,  but  that  man 
is  lost.  As  these  passages  are  proof-texts  of  sin,  the  failiu-e  to 
understand  and  to  seek  God  is  sin.  A  negative  attitude  toward 
the  truth  is  posiiive  transgression. 

J2»  "  All  gone  out  of  the  way."  They  knew  the  right  way, 
the  Gentile  by  the  hght  of  nature  (i.  20,  21)  and  the  Jew 
by  the  law  (ii.  17-20);  but  they  dehberately  forsook  the 
path  where  God's  Hght  shone  for  their  own  way  of  darkness. 
They  are  "together  [without  exception,  again]  become  un- 
profitable." The  last  is  a  picturesque  word,  signifying  some- 
thing that  once  was  good  and  useful,  hke  meat  or  milk,  but 
has  grown  corrupt  beyond  recovery.  As  Paul  began  this 
section  on  character  with  the  sweeping  statement  that  there 
is  none  good,  so  he  closes  it  with  the  equally  inclusive  state- 
ment that  no  one  "  doeth  good."  All  their  rehgious  works— 
and  they  are  many— are  conceived  in  sin  and  are  therefore  un- 
righteous. 

J3,  H.  Speech  was  given  to  man  for  his  honor  and  bless- 
ing. He  turned  it  to  his  own  shame.  See  the  whispering,  back- 
biting, boasting,  in  i.  29,  30.  "Throat,"  "tongues,"  "lips," 
"  mouth,"  an  anatomical  order  from  that  which  is  inward  to  the 
outward.  The  throat  over  a  corrupt  heart  is  like  an  unfilled 
grave,  with  the  putrescent  corpse  lying  at  the  bottom— a  terri- 
ble picture  for  a  Jew,  or  for  anybody,  for  that  matter;  the 
tongue,  a  means  to  praise  God,  become  an  instrument  of 
craft;  the  lips— think  of  those  of  Judas— deadly  with  the  old 
serpent's  poison ;  and  the  mouth,  made  to  be  full  of  innocent 
laughter  (Ps.  cxxvi.  2;  Luke  vi.  21)  and  joyous  praise,  be- 
fouled with  cursing  and  bitterness. 

J 5^  Their  action  is  no  better  than  their  speech.  "  Their  feet 
are  swift " — they  run  eagerly  to  commit  murder  and  make  war. 

J6»  "  Destruction  and  misery  are  in  their  ways."  What 
have  the  old  nations  that  have  run  their  course  left  in  the  path 


(III.  17-20)  SIN  CONCLUDED  53 

behind  them?  Each  empire  has  built  itself  up  on  the  ruin  of 
all  others.  It  is  an  adage,  "  Blessed  is  the  nation  that  has  no 
history,"  for  all  history  is  but  the  annals  of  strife  and  human  woe. 

J7«  "The  way  of  peace  .  .  .  not  known."  This  is  the 
other  side  of  the  last  verse.     Peace  is  a  stranger  to  the  world. 

18.  "  No  fear  of  God  before  their  eyes,"  for  they  turned 
their  backs  on  him.  This  lack  of  reverence  for  him  and  his 
revelation  is  the  fruitful  source  of  this  "  mosaic  of  sin."  It  is 
to  be  noted  that  what  is  a  subjective  condition  of  heart  is  here 
spoken  of  as  if  it  might  be  outward,  "before  their  eyes." 

J  9.  This  plain  Scripture  proof  of  man's  sinfulness  having 
been  adduced,  the  next  step  is  to  show  to  whom  it  applies. 
The  Jew  might  say  it  is  inspiration's  estimate  of  the  heathen 
world,  but  cannot  refer  to  him.  No,  says  Paul;  "we  know 
that  what  things  soever  the  law  saith," — he  calls  the  Psalms, 
etc.,  from  which  these  quotations  are  selected,  the  law, — "it 
saith  to  them  who  are  under  the  law,"  that  is,  to  the  Jews. 
These  sentiments  about  the  character  and  conduct  of  men  and 
the  cause  of  their  sin  do  describe  the  Gentiles,  but  are  intended 
first  of  all  as  a  condemnation  of  the  men  to  whom  they  are 
spoken  and  in  whose  Bible  they  are  recorded.  Might  it  be 
possible  for  us  to  delude  ourselves  to-day  in  a  way  that  Paul 
would  not  allow  the  Jew  to  do — that  these  pictures  of  sin  are 
photographs  of  that  distant  age,  but  not  of  ours?  But  have 
we  not  the  same  "law"  then  possessed  by  the  Jew?  And 
has  the  principle — it  is  a  principle — failed,  that  what  the  law 
says  it  speaks  first  of  all  to  them  that  have  it? 

Paul  goes  on  to  give  the  object  of  his  quotations :  they  are 
intended  to  stop  "  every  mouth,"  that  of  the  Jew  especially, 
and  to  show  a  whole  world  guilty  before  God.  It  is  a  con- 
demned world,  condemned  by  the  Judge  himself.  To  save  it 
or  any  man  in  it,  there  can  be  no  means  but  his  mercy. 

20.  The  word  "  therefore  "  is  a  mistranslation.  Paul  is  not 
drawing  a  conclusion,  as  this  word  would  indicate,  but  is  about 


54  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (III.  20) 

to  demolish  the  last  stronghold  of  the  Jew.  For  "  therefore  " 
read  "because."  All  the  world  is  guilty  before  God,  "because" 
by  deeds  of  law  shall  no  flesh  be  justified,  accounted  righteous, 
before  him.  Many  Jews  were  rigorous  observers  of  the  law. 
Paul's  own  righteousness  in  it  had  been  perfect  (Phil.  iii.  6). 

In  proving  all  men  sinners,  he  was  well  aware  of  the  Jews' 
scrupulous  attention  to  the  behests  of  Moses,  but  he  demol- 
ishes their  last  refuge  in  declaring  that  law- works  cannot 
save.  After  all  of  them  are  done,  they  leave  a  man  in  sin 
(Gal.  ii.  15,  16).  The  reason  law  cannot  save  is  because  it 
has  neither  the  office  nor  the  power  of  salvation.  In  one 
word  Paul  gives  its  office;  "by  the  law  is"— not  justification 
—  "  by  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of  sin."  It  has  an  office  and 
"is  good,  if  a  man  use  it  lawfully"  (i  Tim.  i.  8).  But  one 
might  as  well  attempt  to  cross  the  river  on  a  millstone  as  to 
get  into  heaven  by  works  of  law.  If  he  would  sink  without 
the  stone  he  must  sink  deeper  with  it.  If  the  Gentile  perishes 
"without  law"  (ii.  12),  much  more  will  the  Jew,  who  has  it, 
for  it  only  makes  his  sin  apparent. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  he  does  not  say  that  only  the  law 
has  this  office,  nor  that  this  is  the  only  office  of  the  law.  Men 
have  "  the  form  of  knowledge  and  of  the  truth  in  the  law  '* 
(ii.  20).  It  is  a  permanent  revelation  of  divine  righteousness. 
Again,  it  is  said  to  be  "  a  schoolmaster  unto  Christ "  (Gal.  iii. 
24)  and  to  have  been  made  for  the  lawless  (i  Tim.  i.  9).  The 
offices  of  the  law  are  various.  On  the  other  hand,  sin  is  re- 
vealed not  on'y  by  the  law,  but  by  conscience,  as  the  apostle 
has  already  taught  (ii.  15),  by  the  gospel,  and  especially 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  (John  xvi.  8,  9).  When  Paul  says  here 
that  by  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of  sin,  he  is  just  asserting  in 
the  most  emphatic  manner  that  the  Jew  cannot  hope  for  sal- 
vation by  its  observance.  It  cannot  lift  him  out  of  the  wide 
morass  of  his  sin ;  it  only  shows  him  how  deep  and  how  hope- 
lessly he  is  in. 


(III.  20)  SIN  CONCLUDED  55 

This  brief  but  radical  statement  about  the  office  of  the  law 
would  startle  the  first  readers  of  the  epistle,  especially  the 
Jewish  ones,  and  lead  them  to  expect  something  more  on  the 
topic.  And  Paul  presents  it,  but  not  here.  Indeed,  the  law 
is  a  chief  topic  to  be  considered.  The  most  serious  Jew  would 
ask.  Has  God  given  Israel  a  code  that,  after  all,  cannot  save? 
The  question  confronts  the  gospel  at  the  start;  Jesus  met  it 
(Matt.  V.  17-20),  and  Paul  will  in  due  time. 

And  here  it  may  be  as  well  to  notice  that  this  is  a  charac- 
teristic of  the  epistle,  to  touch  a  subject  and  then  drop  it  for 
a  full  treatment  farther  on.  We  have  had  three  such  instances 
already.  The  righteousness  by  faith  was  mentioned  and  at 
once  left  at  i.  17  for  the  discussion  about  sin.  It  is  taken  up 
again  as  the  next  topic,  and  forms  the  main  line  of  thought 
to  the  end  of  chapter  viii.  The  advantage  of  the  Jew  was 
broached  in  iii.  1-4,  but  will  not  be  noticed  again  until  chap- 
ters ix.-xi.,  where  it  is  fully  considered.  The  third  case  is 
this  one  about  the  law,  glanced  at  again  in  v.  20  and  vi.  14, 
but  the  full  exposition  is  withheld  until  chapter  vii.  Romans 
iii.  21  is  the  text  of  chapter  iv.  Finally  there  ends  with  vi.  13 
a  very  short  exhortation,  taken  up  again  in  the  first  verse  of 
the  twelfth  chapter  as  the  theme  for  the  rest  of  the  epistle. 
Rigid  attention  to  the  course  of  thought  shows  the  necessity 
for  this  first  mention  and  later  development,  and  accounts 
logically  for  the  place  where  each  comes  in. 

The  first  main  division  of  the  epistle  forms  a  powerful  nega- 
tive argument  for  the  second,  and  was  evidently  so  intended. 
Since  man  is  a  sinner  with  no  help  in  himself  and  none  in  the 
law,  what  is  left  to  him  but  to  look  to  the  mercy  of  God? 
Every  son  of  Adam  is  not  only  lost,  but  condemned.  His 
penalty  is  continuance  in  sin  not  only  while  he  sins,  but  be- 
cause he  has  sinned.  This  is  the  wrath  of  God,  the  proposi- 
tion which  begins  the  first  main  division  (i.  18)  and  is  proved 
in  it.     All  the  world  is  **  guilty  before  God."     In  a  court  of 


56  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE   ROMANS  (III.  ii) 

justice  it  is  only  after  every  defense  has  failed  and  the  law 
itself  has  been  shown  to  be  broken,  it  is  only  at  this  point 
that  the  appeal  is  made  to  the  judge  for  his  clemency.  The 
epistle  has  brought  us  to  such  a  point. 

This  division  extends  to  the  close  of  chapter  viii.,  and  con- 
tains two  leading  thoughts :  first,  justification,  in  iii.  21-v.,  and 
secondly,  sanctification,  in  chapters  vi.-viii.  These  theologi- 
cal terms  are  used  instead  of  the  more  biblical  ones,  "right- 
eousness "  and  "  holiness,"  because  Paul  embraces  under  the 
former  both  justification  and  sanctification,  both  the  removal 
of  guilt  (iii.  21-v.)  and  the  power  of  right  Hving  (vi.-viii.). 
For  clearness  of  thought,  theology  separates  these  two  and 
discusses  them  apart.  Paul  includes  the  two  in  the  word 
"righteousness"  and  even  in  the  word  "justify." 

21*  With  this  verse  Paul  begins  the  description  of  that 
righteousness  which  avails  before  God.  (See  (3)  above.)  It 
might  read,  "An  apart-from-law  righteousness  of  God  has 
been  revealed."  This  gives  Paul's  order  of  the  words.  The 
definite  article  before  the  word  "  righteousness  "  is  omitted  in 
modern  translations.  He  told  us  in  a  former  verse  (i.  17) 
that  it  is  in  the  gospel  that  this  righteousness  is  unveiled,  or, 
as  here,  stands  in  clear  light.  The  word  "  now,"  meaning  as 
the  case,  the  argument,  now  stands,  shows  how  gladly  Paul 
turns  from  the  painful  matter  of  sin  to  its  sure  remedy.  A 
sigh  of  rehef  can  be  heard  in  the  particle. 

Just  one  point  is  made  so  far  about  the  righteousness:  it 
stands  apart  from  the  law,  has  no  vital  connection  with  it ;  its 
source  is  elsewhere.  Paul  says  just  this  in  Philippians  iii.  9. 
He  does  not  define  the  word.  Something  of  its  contents  is 
given  in  i  Corinthians  xv.  3,  4.  Of  course  it  is  not  God's  at- 
tribute, so  called,  for  that  is  not  the  special  revelation  of  the 
gospel ;  neither  could  it  be  said  of  that  attribute  that  it  is  a 
righteousness  by  faith.  The  gospel  tells  where  this  saving 
righteousness  is  found— in  Christ ;   on  what  condition  it  is 


(III.  22)  RIGHTEOUSNESS  57 

gained  by  a  sinner— faith ;  what  are  its  present  fruits— love, 
joy,  and  peace  ;  and  what  is  the  outcome — eternal  life.  Paul's 
readers  knew  all  this,  and  therefore  he  limits  himself  to  other 
points,  equally  important,  found  in  the  paragraph  before  us. 

"Being  witnessed  by  the  law  and  the  prophets."  While 
denying  one  relation  between  the  law  and  the  gospel,  Paul 
never  forgets  to  insist  upon  another.  There  is  no  breach  be- 
tween the  Old  Testament  and  the  New.  The  ceremonies  and 
the  prophecies  of  the  Jewish  Bible  could  not  give  Hfe;  they 
did  not  develop  the  Christ ;  but  in  his  springing  "  out  of  Judah," 
in  his  being  "made  under  the  law,"  and  in  his  resurrection 
"according  to  the  Scriptures,"  they  become  a  powerful  and 
ever-Hving  witness  to  him.  A  shadow  never  gives  birth  to  sub- 
stance, but  substance  to  shadow.  The  shadow  of  the  law  an- 
swers exactly  to  the  substantial  righteousness  of  the  gospel, 
from  which  the  shadow  arose,  and  testifies  that  they  belong 
together.  How  the  ceremonies  of  the  law  pointed  to  Christ 
is  elaborately  unfolded  in  the  Book  of  Hebrews.  The  taber- 
nacle, the  lavings,  the  sacrifices,  all  pointed  to  Christ.  The 
prophets  bore  direct  verbal  testimony  to  righteousness  to  come 
just  as  it  did  come.  The  gospel,  when  it  was  first  preached 
and  as  Paul  preached  it,  must  have  seemed  hke  a  subversion 
of  the  ancient  documents,  so  new  and  radical  was  it.  But 
Paul  found  it  harmonizing  with  these  same  parchments,  when 
read  under  the  new  light  burning  in  Christ;  and  he  stands 
for  and  stands  on  the  "living  oracles"  (Acts  vii.  ^'^). 

In  this  verse,  then,  Paul  has  given  the  first  item  in  describ- 
ing the  new  righteousness ;  it  is  apart  from  the  law,  but  not 
contrary  to  it. 

22»  He  tells  us  next  the  source  of  this  righteousness — it  is 
"  of  [from]  God  "  ;  he  gives  its  leading  characteristic — it  is  not 
a  by-works,  but  a  by-faith  righteousness ;  he  points  to  him  on 
whom  alone  the  faith  must  rest,  Jesus  Christ,  for  right  faith  is 
faith  on  the  right  object ;  he  asserts  the  universality  of  its  pro- 


58  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS         (III.  23) 

vision— it  is  a  righteousness  for  all ;  he  gives  the  condition  of 
its  bestowment — it  is  for  every  one  who  believes.  It  is  to  be 
observed  that  faith,  first  the  noun  and  then  the  verb,  is  men- 
tioned twice  in  this  verse.  Commentators  are  either  silent  here 
or  confused.  Even  Meyer,  correct  in  his  exposition  of  the 
first  mention,  but  surely  wrong  at  i.  17,  says  nothing  about 
the  second.  The  lack  of  clearness  arises  in  not  observing  that 
when  faith  is  first  spoken  of  in  the  verse  it  belongs  to  the  de- 
scription of  the  righteousness,  and  in  the  second  instance  it 
teaches  how  the  righteousness  is  attained.  The  first  is  ob- 
jective, the  second  subjective.  As  a  righteousness  by  works  is 
secured  by  works,  so  a  righteousness  by  faith  is  secured  by  faith. 

''  For  there  is  no  difference  "  between  Jew  and  Gentile. 
This  little  sentence  gives  the  reason  for  saying  that  the  right- 
eousness is  for  "  all."  All  need  it,  and  no  class  of  men  has 
anything  else  to  present  before  God  for  salvation. 

23*  "  For  all  have  sinned."  This  shows  what  Paul  means 
in  saying  there  is  no  difference.  He  does  not  mean  that  they 
have  all  sinned  to  the  same  degree,  but  if  any  man  has  sinned 
at  all  he  has  failed,  and  cannot  be  saved  by  any  other  means 
than  faith  in  Christ.  Paul  shows  next  the  consequence  of 
universal  sinfulness ;  all  sinned  and  are  coming  short,  in  suc- 
cessive generations,  of  the  glory  of  God.  He  changes  the 
tense  from  the  past  to  the  present.  He  does  not  say  that  all 
men  come  equally  short  of  measuring  up  to  the  standard ;  but 
the  standard  is  perfection,— nothing  else  can  pass  before  God, 
—and  the  lack  of  an  inch  is  as  fatal  as  the  lack  of  twelve.  In 
this  world  he  who  sins  but  httle  is  much  better  than  he  who 
sins  much,  but  at  God's  bar  neither  will  be  accepted.  There 
is  "no  difference."  To  sin  at  all  is  to  lose  all  and  to  come 
short  of  the  glory  or  praise  of  God.  "  Glory  "  in  this  place 
means  the  same  as  in  John  xii.  43,  where  it  is  translated 
"praise."  For  man  can  have  no  higher  glory  than  the  ap- 
probation of  God. 


(III.  24)  RIGHTEOUSNESS  59 

What  Paul  has  to  say  in  this  and  the  preceding  verse  about 
sin  is  very  brief,  for  the  subject  was  fully  discussed  in  the  first 
section  of  the  epistle ;  but  this  brief  mention  shows  how  this 
section  is  made  vital  by  that  one. 

24.  "  Being  justified  freely,"  etc.  The  subject  of  this  par- 
ticipial clause  is  the  "  all  who  sinned  "  at  the  beginning  of  the 
last  verse.  Of  course  Paul  does  not  mean  to  say  that  all  sin- 
ners are  justified.  He  had  just  declared  that  the  condition  is 
faith,  and  he  need  not  say  it  again.  To  have  inserted  the  word 
"faith"  would  have  turned  the  attention  from  what  he  has 
to  say,  that  sinners  without  exception  are  justified  not  by 
works,  not  by  any  means  except  those  mentioned  below. 
When  they  are  justified,  or  if  they  are  justified  at  all,  it  must 
be  as  here  described.  The  present  tense  of  the  participle  does 
not  show  a  continuance  of  the  act, — justification  occurs  once 
for  all, — but  a  continuance  in  its  spreading  among  men  and 
generations  that  need  it. 

To  justify  does  not  mean  to  make  (inherently)  righteous, 
but  to  declare  or  pronounce  righteous.  (See  remarks  on  vi. 
I.)  Two  cases  in  which  the  word  has  already  stood  in  the 
epistle  show  this,  ii.  13  and  iii.  4.  In  the  first,  men  are  said 
to  be  justified  in  the  judgment.  Can  that  mean  that  they  are 
made  right  in  that  hour  of  award?  In  the  next,  God  is  said 
to  be  justified  at  that  same  time.  He  that  is  holiness  itself 
can  be  declared  so,  and  anything  else  is  blasphemy.  (See  also 
I  Tim.  iii.  16,  and  Luke  vii.  29.)  In  Matthew  (xi.  19)  wis- 
dom is  said  to  be  "justified  of  [by]  her  children."  Her  children 
recognize  her  excellence,  and  pronounce  it  such,  but  do  not 
make  her  what  she  already  is.  To  justify  is  in  some  sense  a 
forensic  act  equivalent  to  "  not  condemned  " ;  "  he  that  be- 
lieveth  is  not  condemned"  (John  iii.  18),  that  is,  he  is  justified 
on  his  faith.  But  the  pecuHarity  of  the  divine  court  is  that  the 
sinner  has  been  proved  to  be  guilty  and  is  known  to  be  guilty, 
—all  the  world  is  guilty  before  God,— and  after  all  is  freely 


60  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS         (III.  25) 

justified;  while  in  the  human  court  this  is  impossible.  When 
one  is  justified  or  acquitted  among  men  it  must  be  either  that 
his  crime  was  not  proved  or  that  there  were  extenuating  cir- 
cumstances. But  before  God  man  is  guilty  and  yet  is  justified 
on  beheving,  but  not  for  his  beUeving.  Man  cannot  justify  a 
sinner ;  God  can. 

Paul  proceeds  to  give  three  interesting  facts— the  very  mar- 
row of  the  gospel— pertaining  to  the  subject.  First,  as  to  the 
manner.  All  are  justified  "freely."  It  costs  the  acquitted 
person  absolutely  nothing,  "  without  money  and  without  price  " 
(Isa.  Iv.  i).  Secondly,  the  source  of  the  justification.  "By 
his  [God's]  grace."  This  is  his  favor  to  the  man  not  after  he 
is  justified,  but  before.  It  is  grace  toward  the  ungodly  (Eph. 
ii.  4,  5):  He  "loved  us,  even  when  we  were  dead  in  sins." 
Thirdly,  we  have  the  means  of  the  justification  of  grace. 
"Through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus."  Note  the 
relation  of  the  two  divine  persons  toward  the  justifying  act. 
It  is  God  who  justifies  ;  it  is  Christ  who  is  the  medium.  God's 
grace  comes  in  and  through  Christ. 

25*  In  this  and  the  following  verse  there  are  just  two  points : 
first,  how  Christ  became  redemption,  and  secondly,  why.  The 
redemption  is  from  the  wrath  of  God.  The  Jew  had  little 
trouble  in  understanding  this  point.  As  a  sinner  he  knew  he 
was  under  the  divine  displeasure,  and  brought  therefore  a 
bloody  offering — an  ox,  a  sheep,  or  a  dove— by  which  to  re- 
deem himself  from  God's  displeasure  and  render  satisfaction 
for  his  sin.  Paul  now  says  God  himself  has  set  forth  Jesus 
Christ  in  his  blood  as  the  propitiatory  offering  through  faith. 
The  phrase  "  in  his  blood  "  is  to  be  joined  not  with  the  word 
"  faith  "  immediately  preceding,  but  with  the  verb  "  set  forth." 
Philosophy  and  theology  have  busied  themselves  here,  without 
reaching  unanimity,  on  a  question  which  Paul  does  not  hint 
at— the  relation  of  the  sacrifice  to  its  end.  The  apostle  gives 
only  the  facts.     God  freely  justifies  men  by  means  of  the  r^q- 


(III.  25)  RIGHTEOUSNESS  61 

som  power  in  Christ  Jesus.  He  is  such  because  God  has  set 
him  forth  in  his  blood  as  a  sufficient  propitiation.  Whatever 
reason  may  say  about  such  a  sacrifice,  Paul  is  satisfied  with  it 
because  it  is  God's  own.  God  is  satisfied  with  the  offering, 
for  he  provided  it.  It  becomes  a  propitiation  "  through  faith," 
because  faith  says  of  it  just  what  God  does — I  accept  what 
God  has  provided  for  my  sin.  That  ends  the  difference  be- 
tween God  and  the  sinner,  and  they  are  at  one  in  Christ  Jesus. 
This  is  justification  by  faith. 

"To  declare  his  righteousness."  With  this  Paul  begins  to 
answer  the  second  question,  why  Christ  Jesus  was  set  forth  as 
a  redemptive  sacrifice  in  his  blood.  His  answer  will  not  sat- 
isfy unless  his  exposition  of  sin  is  accepted.  Man's  sin  is  not 
misfortune;  it  is  guilt.  God's  wrath  burns  against  it;  why 
should  that  wrath  ever  cease?  Again  the  Jew  could  answer. 
His  law  bore  witness  (verse  21)  to  the  gospel.  The  smoking 
altar  where  he  offered  his  lamb  or  his  bullock  not  only  testi- 
fied that  God  could  remit  the  offerer's  sin,  but  declared  also 
that  God  was  holy.  Justice  demanded  the  Hfe  of  the  sinner, 
and  a  life  was  given  in  that  of  the  bloody  offering.  Justice 
justified  because  justice  was  satisfied. 

The  word  ''  righteousness  "  in  this  sentence  does  not  mean 
the  same  as  in  verse  21.  To  insist  that  a  word  must  in  every 
instance  of  its  use  have  the  same  signification  is  subversive  of 
all  understanding.  Such  a  notion  is  contradicted  by  the  facts. 
The  word  "  glory  "  has  already  been  used  in  two  widely  differ- 
ent senses.  Righteousness  here  looks  at  God's  character  as 
Judge.  The  question  now  before  us  is.  How  can  a  righteous 
Judge  pronounce  a  guilty  sinner  guiltless  ?  Paul's  answer  is 
that  the  redemptive  sacrifice  in  Jesus  Christ,  a  sacrifice  fore- 
shadowed in  the  Jewish  altar-offerings,  declares  the  divine 
righteousness  in  showing  mercy.  The  chief  question  in  saving 
man  is  not  how  the  man  may  be  accounted  just,  but  how  God 
may  remain  so  in  forgiving  his  sins. 


62  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE   ROMANS         (III.  25) 

"  For  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  past,  through  the  for- 
bearance of  God."  The  Revised  Version  is  preferable :  "  Be- 
cause of  the  passing  over  of  the  sins  done  aforetime,  in  the 
forbearance  of  God."  These  are  not  the  sins  committed  by 
the  behever  before  he  came  to  Christ,  but  the  sins  done  under 
the  old  economy,  before  Christ  came  (Heb.  ix.  15).  It  is  not 
said  that  God  forgave  these  sins,  not  even,  with  the  King  James 
version,  that  he  remitted  them.  To  all  appearances,  in  all  past 
time  he  paid  no  attention  to  sins,  he  overlooked  them  ("  winked 
at,"  Acts  xvii.  30),  without  meting  out  adequate  punishment 
(Ps.  Ixxviii.  38).  Sometimes  in  the  history  of  the  race  he  sent 
judgments,  now  against  the  Jews  and  now  against  the  Gen- 
tiles. The  Jews  were  driven  more  than  once  into  captivity, 
and  more  than  one  heathen  nation  had  been  overthrown  ;  but 
as  judgment  for  man's  sin,  this  was  nothing.  Inspiration's 
just  estimate,  in  spite  of  these  severe  visitations,  cries  that 
there  was  on  God's  part  a  "passing  over  of  the  sins  done 
aforetime,"  as  if  the  just  Judge  had  not  rightly  weighed  their 
guilt.  There  was  a  thick  veil  over  his  righteousness,  but  the 
cross  removed  it  and  demonstrated  his  judgment  of  sin.  The 
terrible  tragedy  of  the  cross,  on  which  God  set  forth  his  Son  in 
his  blood,  is  his  measure  of  man's  demerit.  The  punishment 
that  man  so  long  escaped  fell  at  last  on  the  Son  of  man. 

Now,  while  the  death  of  Christ  Jesus  looked  back  thus  at 
the  sins  of  the  whole  race,  and  while  he  died  "  because  of  the 
passing  over  of  the  sins  done  aforetime,  in  the  forbearance  of 
God,"  it  is  by  no  means  taught  that  the  race  was  saved.  What  is 
taught  is  very  clear,  not  that  Christ  died  to  secure  the  righteous- 
ness of  men,  but  to  rescue  the  righteousness  of  God  from  a  mis- 
understanding. Says  Godet  ("Commentary," /;//<?<:.) :  "For 
four  thousand  years  the  spectacle  presented  by  mankind  to 
the  whole  moral  universe  (compare  i  Cor.  iv.  9)  was,  so  to 
speak,  a  continual  scandal.  .  .  .  Divine  righteousness  seemed 
to  sleep ;  one  might  even  have  asked  if  it  existed.     Men  sinned 


(III.  26)  RIGHTEOUSNESS  63 

here  below  and  yet  they  lived.  They  sinned  on  and  yet 
reached  in  safety  a  hoary  old  age.  Where  were  the  'wages 
of  sin'?  It  was  this  relative  impunity  which  rendered  a 
solemn  manifestation  of  righteousness  necessary."  Jesus  died 
for  men,  but  in  a  much  more  striking  way  he  died  for  God. 
What  a  fathomless  depth  of  meaning  he  gave  to  the  first  peti- 
tion in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  "Hallowed  be  thy  name"!  How 
God  hates  sin !  For  even  overlooking  it  his  honor  demanded 
the  blood  of  the  cross;  how  much  more  when  he  forgives  it! 
And  it  is  not  difficult  to  distinguish  between  the  cross  as  a  dem- 
onstration of  God's  righteousness  on  one  hand,  and  a  propiti- 
ation looking  toward  man's  righteousness  on  the  other.  It  is  a 
propitiation  only  through  faith ;  it  is  a  demonstration  in  itself. 
In  all  time,  past,  present,  or  future,  only  those  men  are  saved 
by  the  cross  who  believe ;  but  equally  in  all  time  the  cross 
honors  God  whether  men  believe  or  not.  The  cross,  instead 
of  saving  all  men,  does  show,  by  its  declaration  of  God's 
righteousness,  and  show  conclusively,  that  they  are  not  saved 
unless  they  believe. 

26»  The  cross  stands  midway  in  the  history  of  the  race  and 
looks  in  both  directions  in  declaring  God's  righteousness  in 
his  dealings  with  men.  For  this  reason  the  phrase  *'  to  declare 
his  righteousness,"  in  verse  25,  is  repeated  here.  The  death 
of  Christ  on  the  cross  accomphshed  one  great  work  and  be- 
came the  means  to  another.  It  showed  that  God  was  not 
slack  in  his  deahng  with  the  sins  of  the  race  in  the  past ;  it 
also  declares  his  righteousness  in  his  mercy  toward  the  be- 
liever now,  "  at  this  time,"  a  phrase  in  contrast  with  the  word 
"  past "  in  the  preceding  verse.  But  this  phrase  conveys  also 
the  fitness  and  significance  of  the  era  of  the  cross.  It  was  the 
time  foreseen  and  chosen  by  God  for  his  marvelous  display  of 
his  own  holy  character.  In  after  years  men  came  in  some 
sense  to  recognize  the  meaning  of  this  period  by  dating  time 
from  the  birth  of  Christ.     What  the  antichrist  will  at  the  last 


64  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (III.  26) 

attempt  to  do  (Dan.  vii.  25)  Christ  had  the  right  to  do— cre- 
ate a  new  era. 

"  That  he  might  be  just,  and  the  justifier  of  him  which  [who] 
believeth  in  Jesus."  This  is  the  grand  purpose  of  God  in  set- 
ting forth  Christ  in  his  blood.  On  this  setting  forth  the  three 
main  ideas  in  these  two  verses  depend:  set  forth  to  declare 
God's  righteousness  in  the  past;  set  forth  to  declare  God's 
righteousness  "  at  this  time  " ;  and  set  forth  that  he  might  be 
just,  and  the  justifier  of  him  who  beheves  in  Jesus.  But  why- 
does  Paul  mention  the  retroactive  influence  of  the  cross?  It 
is  his  argument,  first  of  all  with  the  Jew  and  ultimately  with 
all  men,  to  cut  off  the  Jew  from  a  false  rehance  on  his  past 
history.  It  explains  history.  History  cannot  interpret  the 
gospel ;  the  gospel  interprets  history.  The  Jew's  history  was 
not  complete,  his  sacrifices  never  atoned,  until  Christ  died  on 
the  cross,  which  death  showed  that  God  had  dealt  with  men 
not  as  they  deserved  and  not  strictly  in  accord  with  his  char- 
acter as  a  righteous  Judge.  The  sacrifice  on  the  cross  dem- 
onstrates for  the  first  time  what  God  is,  and  shows  that  in 
times  past  and  present  he  is  the  same—"  of  purer  eyes  than  to 
behold  evil"  (Hab.  i.  13). 

If  God  set  forth  Christ  in  his  blood  as  a  redemptive  and 
propitiatory  sacrifice  in  order  that  he  might  be  just  in  justify- 
ing the  believer,  then  we  gain  with  certainty  the  meaning  of 
the  words  "  redemption  "  and  "  propitiation."  God  could  not 
be  just  without  the  sacrifice  of  Christ ;  it  was  made  in  order 
that  God  might  be  just ;  therefore  it  must  be  said  that  Christ 
died  for  men  and  that  his  blood  was  their  redemption  price 
(Gal.  iii.  13;  i  Pet.  i.  18,  19).  The  judge  could  not  release 
the  bankrupt  man  until  his  creditor  was  satisfied.  For  Christ 
did  not  die  that  God  might  seem  to  be  just,  but  that  in  fact 
he  might  be  just  in  the  very  act  of  justifying  the  believer.  It 
is  a  righteous  thing  as  well  as  a  merciful  thing  for  God  to  for- 
give a  believer;  but  the  sinner  cannot  plead  this  right,  since 


(111.  26)  J^/GirT£or/SN-£SS  65 

he  did  not  provide  the  ransom,— God  did  in  Christ,— but  the 
sinner's  Saviour  can  plead  it  for  him.  Justification  is  an  act 
of  righteousness  toward  Jesus  Christ,  an  act  of  mercy  toward 
the  sinner.  If  mercy  is  not  made  prominent  in  this  descrip- 
tion of  righteousness,  it  is  because  Paul  is  looking  at  the  primal 
difficulty  in  saving  men.  It  is  not  how  to  get  meh  to  God, 
but  how  to  get  God  to  men— how  a  just  God  is  to  pronounce 
a  sinner  just.  The  wisdom  of  men  never  could  have  removed 
this  difficulty  even  if  they  had  seen  it.  It  is  completely  taken 
away  in  Christ  Jesus. 

The  paragraph  (verses  21-26),  then,  has  just  two  topics :  the 
righteousness  that  avails,  and  its  bestowment,  justification.  It 
may  be  outHned  thus : 

ri.  Its  source— *' God." 


a 

tn 

a 


^  ,    .  .       ^  (a)  "Apart  from  "it; 

2.   Relation  to  law  ' 


{ 


2  <. 

C/3 


{i?)  ''  Witnessed  "  by  it. 

3.  Chief  characteristic—''  Faith  in  Jesus." 

4.  Condition — Behef  in  him. 

5.  Its  extent— "Unto  all." 

v6.   Reason  for  this  extent—"  No  difference.' 

C  C{a)  Manner— "Freely." 


I.  How^ 


(b)  Cause—"  His  grace." 
(<:)  Means— "Redemption  that   is   in   Christ 
Jesus." 
2.  Why  by  blood— "That  God  might  be  just,  and  the 
justifier  of  him  which  believeth  in  Jesus." 

This  brief  but  masterly  exposition  of  righteousness,  like  the 
sun,  is  its  own  evidence.  But  it  found  great  opposition  at  the 
start,  not  in  heathenism,  but  in  pharisaism.  The  Jew  could 
claim  that  his  God  was  the  true  one,  his  religion  a  revealed 
one,  and  its  documents  inspired.  (See  his  boast  in  ii.  17-20.) 
It  is  not  the  false,  but  the  perverted  religion  that  furnishes  the 
chief  obstacle  to  the  truth.     And  Paul  begins  here  to  answer 


66  THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS   (III.  27,  28) 

the  perversion.  Indeed,  the  direct  exposition  of  the  right- 
eousness by  faith  ends  with  the  twenty-sixth  verse.  If  the 
epistle  had  ended  there  it  would  not  have  been  incomplete. 
All  the  rest  is  a  consideration  of  objections,  in  which  the  fur- 
ther unfolding  of  the  righteousness  is  only  incidental. 

21*.  "  Where,  then,  is  the  boasting  "  on  the  part  of  the  Jew? 
How  can  he  claim  anything  over  the  Gentile?  Righteousness 
does  not  arise  from  his  law ;  he  is  a  sinner  like  the  Gentile, 
and  the  salvation  in  Christ  is  universal.  "  Where,  then,  is  the 
boasting?  It  is  excluded.  By  what  [kind  of  a]  law?  "  What 
sort  of  an  institution?  One  whose  chief  characteristic  is  pre- 
scribed works?  No;  where  a  man  does  works  of  law  to  be 
saved,  he  can  boast  of  them  and  boast  of  the  law  that  warrants 
them.  Boasting  can  only  be  shut  out  by  a  law,  an  institution, 
whose  chief  characteristic  is  faith.  For  faith  says  first  of  all 
(Luke  xviii.  13)  that  man  is  so  hopelessly,  helplessly  a  sinner, 
so  guilty  even  with  all  his  law-works,  that  God's  grace  alone 
can  save  him  in  Christ.  If  a  man  believes,  he  cannot  boast 
of  that;  for  even  if  it  is  denied  that  faith  is  God's  gift,  it  is 
nothing  to  a  man's  credit  to  trust  God.  While  it  is  the  chief 
of  sins  not  to  do  so,  trust  is  every  man's  bounden  duty. 

It  will  be  noticed  here  that  Paul  claims  the  same  distinction 
for  faith  that  the  Jew  does  for  works ;  it  is  a  law,  a  new  and 
wholly  different  law — not  a  law  of  bondage,  but  a  "law  of 
liberty"  (James  i.  25).  He  also  sets  the  two  in  sharp  an- 
tithesis.    Faith  and  works  of  law  are  mutually  exclusive. 

28.  "  Therefore  we  conclude,"  etc.  The  Revised  Version 
also  reads  "  therefore,"  but  it  is  not  correct.  It  ought  to  be 
"for,"  And  thus  the  verse  gives  the  substantial  reason  for 
the  exclusion  of  boasting.  That  reason  is  that  "  a  man  [any 
man,  Jew  or  Gentile]  is  justified  by  faith  [the  latter  is  the  em- 
phatic word]  without  deeds  of  law."  The  last  clause  is  more 
forcible  by  omitting  the  articles. 

But  why  does  Paul  thrust  so  sharply  at  the  Jew's  boasting? 


nil.  29,  30)  RIGHTEOUSNESS  G7 

Is  it  not  because  vain  pride  or  prejudice  is  generally  the  last 
and  strongest  support  of  a  bad  case?  The  Jew's  loud  boast 
was  his  only  argument,  and  it  must  be  silenced. 

29*  "  Is  he  the  God  of  the  Jews  only?  "  The  word  "  or  " 
should  precede— "Or  is  God  the  God  of  the  Jews  only?" 
This  brings  up  the  Jew's  boast  on  another  side.  His  claim 
that  law-works  justify  involves  a  position  which  he  cannot 
maintain— that  there  must  be  more  than  one  God,  one  of  the 
Jews  and  one  of  the  Gentiles.  It  is  proved  now  that  there 
can  be  but  one  way  of  justifying  men,  the  way  of  faith,  a  way 
suited  to  the  Gentile  and  in  flat  contradiction  to  the  Jew's  way 
of  works.  Now  if  the  Jew  sticks  to  his  course,  there  must  be 
two  Gods,  for  the  same  God  cannot  save  men  by  opposing 
methods.  It  is  easy  to  become  confused  here.  Paul  is  not 
contending  for  justification  by  faith.  That  doctrine  is  settled, 
settled  with  the  close  of  the  twenty-sixth  verse.  He  is  argu- 
ing now  for  its  exclusiveness,  that  it  is  the  only  true  doctrine. 
The  Jew  claims  that  the  works  of  law  will  save;  Paul  has 
proved  that  faith  saves.  If  both  are  true,  God  is  not  one. 
But  the  Jew  admitted  that  his  God  was  the  God  of  the  Gen- 
tiles. The  Old  Testament  gives  abundant  proof  of  this  in  the 
Psalms  and  in  the  prophets.  (See  Jer.  x.  7.)  It  was  freely 
admitted  during  the  ministry  of  Jesus  (Mark  xii.  32),  so  that 
no  one  would  dispute  the  saying,  "  Yea,  he  is  the  God  of  the 
Gentiles  also."  The  Jew's  boast  in  his  works  denied  this,  or 
it  was  a  groundless  boast. 

30»  "  Seeing  it  is  one  God."  The  Revised  Version  changes 
both  the  reading  and  the  rendering :  "  If  so  be  that  God  is 
one."  The  change  in  reading  does  not  materially  alter  the 
sense ;  the  change  in  translation  is  a  gain  in  that  it  brings  out 
the  idea  of  the  unity  of  God.  Because  God  is  one  there  can 
be  but  one  way  of  justifying  men.  A  righteous  judge  could 
not  render  contradictory  decisions  where  all  are  alike  guilty, 
and  certainly  he  could  not  decide  in  such  a  way  that  his  judg- 


68  THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS        (III.  31) 

merit  to  save  some  would  necessarily  exclude  others.  The 
unity  of  God  makes  salvation  by  faith  exclusive  of  every  other 
means. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  Paul's  argument  on  this  whole  subject 
of  justification  by  faith,  beginning  with  the  twentieth  verse,  is 
so  far  theological.  It  is  based  on  the  character  of  God  and 
on  his  unity.  The  Jew  admitted  his  holiness  and  his  oneness, 
but  his  deduction  that  justification  came  by  works  of  law  was 
utterly  inconsistent.  He  reached  this  false  conclusion  because 
he  was  ignorant  of  his  sinfulness.  It  cannot  be  said  too  often 
that  a  false  theology  finds  its  source  in  inadequate  views  of 
depravity. 

Paul  excludes  the  works  of  the  law  from  justification,  and 
yet  the  Jew's  Bible  prescribed  them,  and  in  a  most  solemn 
manner:  "The  uncircumcised  man  .  .  .  hath  broken  my 
covenant"  (Gen.  xvii.  14).  The  apostle's  argument  so  far  is 
unanswerable ;  it  is  based  on  solid  theological  data ;  but  from 
the  very  start  he  has  claimed  that  it  is  also  scriptural.  It  has 
a  documentary  defense,  being  witnessed  by  the  law  and  the 
prophets. 

3J^  This  last  verse  of  the  third  chapter  serves  to  bring  up 
this  question.  Faith  excludes  works ;  does  it,  then,  evacuate 
the  Book  of  works,  as  the  Jew  supposed  it  to  be?  The  nega- 
tive comes  with  a  shudder— "God  forbid."  Paul  will  teach 
nothing  contradictory  to  what  he  has  already  called  the  Holy 
Scriptures  (i.  2).  For  the  word  "law"  here  does  not  mean 
the  ceremonial  or  even  the  moral  law,  but  the  whole  Old 
Testament.  "We  establish  the  law."  The  next  chapter 
shows  how.  He  does  not  confirm  it  by  abstract  theological 
reasoning,  but  by  exegetical  exposition  of  its  utterance. 


CHAPTER   IV 

RIGHTEOUSNESS  BY  FAITH  IN  HARMONY  WITH  THE  OLD  TESTA- 
MENT   SCRIPTURES 

This  chapter  answers  the  question  raised  in  the  last  verse 
above,  and  shows  the  concord  between  Moses  and  Paul,  be- 
tween the  law  and  the  gospel.  The  points  are  four:  (i) 
Abraham,  with  whom  the  Jewish  nation  began,  was  justified  by- 
faith  (verses  1-5),  the  method  celebrated  in  song  by  their 
greatest  king,  David  (verses  6-8) ;  (2)  Abraham  was  justified 
long  before  he  was  circumcised  (verses  9-12) ;  (3)  the  promise 
that  he  should  be  the  heir  of  the  world  was  by  means  of  faith 
(verses  13-17^) ;  (4)  the  faith  demanded  by  the  gospel  is  none 
other  in  character  than  that  which  Abraham  exercised  (verses 
17^-25). 

t^  "  What  shall  we  say  then  that  Abraham  .  .  .  hath 
found?  "  The  variations  in  the  reading  of  this  verse  do  not 
seriously  affect  the  sense.  As  Abraham  was  the  father  of  the 
faithful,  Paul  seeks  in  the  record  of  his  life  how  he  was  justi- 
fied. What  did  Abraham,  our  forefather,  find  or  obtain  "  ac- 
cording to  the  flesh"?  This  phrase  is  to  be  joined  with  the 
verb  "hath  found"  and  not  with  the  word  *' father."  It 
means,  what  did  he  find  by  his  own  natural  efforts  in  contrast 
with  that  which  is  spiritual?  The  phrase  is  almost  equivalent 
to  this:  what  did  he  gain  by  rehgious  works?  The  word 
"flesh"  stands  for  the  whole  natural  man,  body,  soul,  and 


70  THE  EPISTLE    TO   THE  ROMANS        (IV.  2-4) 

spirit,  and  not  for  the  physical  part  only.  Hence  the  Scrip- 
ture can  speak  of  ''the  will  of  the  flesh"  (John  i.  13). 

2»  "For  if  Abraham  was  justified  by  works."  The  "for" 
does  not  give  the  answer  to  the  question  about  Abraham,  but 
the  reason  for  asking  it.  The  Jew  rightly  assumed,  with  Paul, 
that  the  head  of  the  nation  was  justified,  but  the  question  is, 
how?  by  what  means?  If  by  works,  then  he  has  something 
of  which  to  boast.  He  can  point  to  these  works;  he  can 
"glory."  The  conditional  sentence  ends  with  this  word 
"glory,"  which  is  rightly  followed,  both  in  the  King  James 
and  the  Revised  Version,  by  a  semicolon ;  for  that  which  fol- 
lows, "  but  not  before  God,"  is  Paul's  own  solemn  assertion. 
Admitting  that  Abraham  was  justified  in  some  way,  Paul  de- 
clares that  it  was  in  such  a  way  that  the  nation's  head  had 
nothing  to  boast  of  before  God.  Paul's  declaration  is  the 
proposition  now  to  be  proved. 

3^  "  For  what  saith  the  Scripture?  "  This  is  Paul's  sup- 
port of  his  point  that  Abraham  found  nothing  of  his  own  to 
glory  in  before  God.  In  the  Scripture,  in  the  law,  it  is  written : 
"  Abraham  beheved  God,  and  it  was  counted  to  him  for  right- 
eousness "  (Gen.  XV.  6).  It  was  not  his  natural  works,  but  his 
trust  in  God,  that  was  set  down  to  his  account.  The  history, 
a  part  of  which  is  here  quoted,  leaves  no  room  for  works. 
God  made  Abraham  a  supernatural  promise,  and  the  patriarch 
believed  it,  and  that  belief  was  set  down  to  his  account  for 
justification.  And  since  there  is  no  merit  in  believing  God, 
because  it  is  every  man's  bounden  duty  to  do  so,  it  was  God's 
mercy,  God's  grace,  that  "counted"  Abraham's  act  ot  faith 
to  his  credit. 

4,  Paul  might  have  dropped  the  question  with  the  Scripture 
quotation,  which  clearly  proves  that  Abraham  did  not  work, 
but  believed;  but  he  gives  an  exposition  of  the  latter  part 
of  his  quotation  almost  in  syllogistic  form.  It  is  a  general 
principle  that  a  worker's  "reward"  or  wages  is  a  "debt"  due 


(IV.  5)  RIGHTEOUSNESS  BY  FAITH  71 

him  for  his  work.  But  Abraham's  reward,  justification,  was 
"counted  "  to  him,  was  bestowed  on  him  as  a  favor.  It  fol- 
lows, then,  that  he  was  not  a  worker.  If  he  was,  the  word 
**  counted,"  implying  grace,  could  not  be  used.  It  is  no  favor 
to  a  man  to  pay  him  what  he  is  earning.  It  is  a  "  debt "  due 
him.  Dr.  Shedd  (*'  Commentary,"  in  loc.)  quotes  "  Coriola- 
nus"  (act  ii.,  sc.  3)  here: 

**  Better  it  is  to  die,  better  to  starve, 
Than  crave  the  hire  which  first  we  do  deserve." 

5»  "But  to  him  [any  one]  that  worketh  not  [the  case  of 
Abraham],  but  [on  the  other  hand]  believeth  on  him  [God] 
that  justifieth  the  ungodly  [individual],  his  faith  [his  beHeving] 
is  counted  [to  him]  for  righteousness  [justification]."  Abra- 
ham was  justified  ;  this  is  not  disputed.  He  did  not  do  works 
to  reach  this  happy  position  before  God ;  therefore  nothing  is 
left  to  which  to  ascribe  his  salvation  except  his  believing. 
This  verse  has  not  the  form,  but  all  the  force,  of  a  deduction 
from  what  precedes.  It  is  the  fundamental  and  guiding  prin- 
ciple in  obtaining  the  favor  of  God.  Abraham  stood  before 
God  in  his  sins.  They  were  not  forgiven.  God  made  him  a 
promise  that  was  against  human  reason,  and  the  patriarch  put 
his  trust  in  it  and  reHed  upon  it.  And  now,  on  the  condition 
of  that  trust  in  God's  word,  God  pronounced  him  no  longer 
guilty  of  sin.  He  had  not  uttered  a  prayer,  he  had  not  done 
a  rehgious  deed,  he  was  not  a  good  man,  but  "  ungodly,"  and 
yet  was  justified.  The  term  "  ungodly  "  does  not  necessarily 
mean  depraved,  but  simply  without  acceptable  piety.  But 
after  all  it  is  an  elastic  term,  and  can  include  the  utmost  de- 
parture from  moral  rectitude.  God's  justification  reaches  be- 
heving  men  in  whatever  sins  it  finds  them. 

It  may  be  said  that  Abraham  was  a  believer  long  years  be- 
fore the  incident  in  his  life  cited  here  by  Paul ;  and  so  he  was. 
''  By  faith  Abraham,  when  he  was  called,  .   .   .  went  out,  not 


72  T!IE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS         (IV.  6-8) 

knowing  whither  he  went "  (Heb.  xi.  8).  But  it  is  nowhere  re- 
corded that  this  act  of  faith  justified  him.  It  was  not  a  faith 
against  reason,  but  a  commendable  following  of  the  guidance 
of  God.  If  any  kind  of  faith  in  God— faith  in  his  existence, 
faith  in  his  goodness,  faith  in  his  almightiness— justified, 
why,  who  would  not  be  saved?  The  faith  that  saves  is  nar- 
row, specific,  and  resting  on  one  single  item,  the  gospel,  as 
Paul  soon  shows.  Abraham  had  been  a  good  man  and  even 
a  beheving  man,  as  was  Cornehus  (Acts  x.  i-6),  and  all  this 
was  no  hindrance  to  justification,  but  in  the  way  of  it.  Justi- 
fication, however,  did  not  occur,  at  least  there  is  no  record  of 
it,  in  the  case  of  Abraham  until  he  beheved  God's  supernatural 
promise.  And  Cornelius  was  not  justified  by  his  goodness; 
he  had  to  hear  the  gospel  to  be  *' saved"  (Acts  xi.  14). 

6-8«  "  Even  as  David,"  etc.  Another  most  eminent  man  in 
Jewish  history  is  cited  in  favor  of  "righteousness  without 
works."  David's  testimony  would  be  conclusive  with  a  can- 
did Jew.  The  introductory  words,  "  even  as,"  show  his  exact 
accord  with  Paul's  reasoning  about  Abraham's  justification. 
David  uses  the  same  language  in  describing  the  felicitation 
(not  felicity)  of  the  man  to  whom  *'  God  imputeth  righteous- 
ness without  works."  David  is  just  citing  his  own  case  (Ps. 
xxxii.  1,2),  when  he  had  none  but  most  evil  works  to  show. 
"This  righteousness  is  not  ours,  otherwise  God  would  not 
gratuitously  impute  it,  but  bestow  it  as  a  matter  of  right ;  nor 
is  it  a  habit  or  quahty,  for  it  is  '  without  works ' ;  but  it  is  a 
gracious  remission,  a  covering  over,  a  non-imputation."  It  is 
God's  sentence  of  acquittal,  pronounced  on  the  si?mer  when 
he  believes  God. 

At  first  sight  there  seems  to  be  a  serious  disagreement  be- 
tween what  Paul  sets  out  to  prove  and  the  citations  from 
David  in  attestation.  Paul's  proposition  is  that  God  "im- 
puteth righteousness  without  works."  The  quotations  men- 
tion neither  righteousness  nor  works,  but  speak  about  sins 


(IV.  9,  10)  RIGHTEOUSNESS  BY  FAITH  73 

being  covered— the  only  instance  in  the  New  Testament  where 
this  language  is  used — and  about  '*  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord 
will  not  impute  sin."  But  to  "  forgive  "  clearly  implies  "  with- 
out works,"  and  to  "  cover  "  implies  the  presence  of  the  sins 
at  the  moment  when  the  mantle  of  grace  falls  on  them  to  hide 
them.  They  could  not  be  covered  if  they  had  not  been  there 
when  the  gracious  concealment  took  place.  This  is  the  first 
point  in  the  proposition  of  ''no  works."  The  second,  about 
"righteousness,"  follows  in  the  eighth  verse,  for  the  non-im- 
putation of  sin  is  necessarily  the  imputation  of  righteousness. 
There  is  no  conceivable  state  of  the  heart  between  the  idea  of 
no  sin  and  that  of  righteousness.  Where  there  is  no  darkness 
there  must  be  light. 

9»  "  Upon  the  circumcision  only,  or  upon  the  uncircumcision 
also?"  With  this  verse  begins  the  discussion  of  the  second 
(2)  point  in  the  concord  between  the  Old  Testament  record 
and  grace.  It  is  now  proved  by  that  record  that  a  man  is 
justified  by  faith  without  works.  Does  this  blessed  way  of 
saving  men  belong  to  the  Jews  only?  "  For"  it  was  proved 
only  in  the  case  of  him  who  is  the  father  of  the  Jews,  Abra- 
ham. This  puts  the  question  into  narrow  limits.  The  uni- 
versality of  justification  by  faith  must  now  be  proved  from 
Abraham's  case ;  and  this  proof  Paul  proceeds  to  furnish. 

JO.  "How  was  it  then  reckoned?"  Paul  is  not  now  in- 
quiring after  the  condition  on  which  Abraham  was  justified ; 
for  it  has  already  been  established  that  that  condition  was  faith. 
But  what  was  his  own  personal  or  rehgious  standing  when  he 
believed  and  was  justified  thereby?  Was  he  a  heathen  or  a 
Jew?  Was  he  circumcised  or  uncircumcised?  Paul  declares 
he  was  in  the  latter  condition,  and  submits  this  assertion  with- 
out proof,  for  the  history  of  Abraham  was  conclusive  on  the 
point.  In  Genesis  xv.  he  was  declared  just.  After  this  Ish- 
mael  was  born,  and  when  thirteen  years  old  (Gen.  xvii.  25)  he 
and  Abraham  were  circumcised  on  the  same  day ;  that  is,  Ish- 


74  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (IV.  n) 

mael  was  in  his  fourteenth  year,  a  number  very  significant  in 
the  estimation  of  Paul's  Jewish  readers. 

This  was  a  tremendous  blow  to  any  who  claimed  that  there 
could  be  no  salvation  (Acts  xv.  i)  without  this  principal  Jew- 
ish rite.  Israel's  own  father  was  a  justified  man  fourteen  years 
before  it  was  imposed. 

n»  "The  sign  of  circumcision."  A  new  question  now 
confronts  Paul.  If  the  rite  did  not  confer  justification,  if 
Abraham  was  saved  so  long  before  it,  what  was  its  office? 
what  did  it  accomplish?  Here  is  a  reminder  of  the  objector's 
question  at  the  beginning  of  the  third  chapter— "What  is  the 
profit  of  circumcision?"  In  answering  Paul  deals  another 
heavy  blow  to  the  opponent.  The  rite,  instead  of  conferring 
righteousness,  confirmed  that  which  Abraham  already  had,  in 
that  it  was  a  *'  sign  "  and  seal  of  it.  Circumcision  attested  the 
vahdity  of  Abraham's  faith— righteousness  in  uncircumcision. 
In  no  dispensation  do  rites  bestow  anything;  they  are  the 
shadow,  not  the  substance ;  they  are  a  seal.  But  the  seal  is 
worthless  apart  from  the  matter  or  from  the  document  that  it 
attests.  The  Jew  had  torn  off  the  seal  from  the  covenant  and 
then  vainly  boasted  of  this  meaningless  imprint. 

"  That  he  might  be  the  father."  After  using  circumcision 
and  the  relative  time  when  it  was  given  as  a  telling  argument 
for  justification  by  faith  and  without  works,  Paul  now  shows 
the  divine  intent  of  the  rite.  Without  it  Abraham  would  have 
been  father  of  the  Gentiles  only.  With  it  he  becomes  father 
of  the  Jews  also.  Thus  quietly  he  puts  the  Jew  in  the  second 
place  so  far.  Abraham  is  called  father  neither  in  a  physical 
nor  in  a  spiritual  sense.  He  is  father  in  that  he  is  head  of  the 
faith  clan  and  so  the  normal  type.  He  is  the  head  and  father 
in  the  fact  that  he  was  the  first  in  whom  God  showed  how 
men  are  to  be  saved. 

"  Father  of  all  them  that  believe,  though  they  be  not  cir- 
cumcised ;  that  [in  order  that]  righteousness  might  be  imputed 


(IV.  12)  RIGHTEOUSNESS  BY  FAITH  75 

unto  them  also."  In  showing  that  Abraham  is  father  of  "  all," 
father  of  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  he  mentions  the  latter  first. 
The  patriarch  was  saved  without  circumcision,  by  simple  faith ; 
so  may  the  Gentiles  be  saved.  The  subordinate  sentence,  "  That 
righteousness  might  be  imputed,"  etc.,  depends  on  the  word 
"  believe  "  in  the  preceding  one.  Gentiles  in  their  uncircum- 
cision  believe  in  order  that  righteousness  may  be  reckoned  to 
them,  just  as  Abraham  beheved  to  become,  in  God's  purpose, 
their  father  and  type. 

12*  **And  the  father  of  circumcision."  God's  gracious 
thought  to  save  the  world  antedates,  so  to  speak,  his  thought 
of  Israel.  Israel  was  the  means  to  the  universal  end.  Hence 
after  Abraham  was  made  the  father  of  the  believing  Gentile 
he  was  circumcised  that  he  might  become  the  first  of  a  cir- 
cumcised people ;  thus  he  was  head  or  father  of  both  classes. 
But  Paul,  by  adding  qualifying  statements,  carefully  excludes 
the  unbelieving  Jew  from  salvation  in  the  Abrahamic  descent. 
If  he  was  justified  in  uncircumcision  he  was  circumcised  in  a 
condition  of  faith.  And  faith  is  the  vital  element  in  establish- 
ing saving  descent  from  the  patriarch.  Without  faith  there  is 
no  circumcision  (Phil.  iii.  2,  3) ;  for  Paul's  qualifying  sentences 
show  that  Abraham  is  not  father  of  those  "of  the  circumci- 
sion only  " ;  they  must  also  walk  in  the  steps  of  the  uncircum- 
cised  faith  of  the  patriarch— "that  faith  of  our  father  Abraham, 
which  he  had  being  yet  uncircumcised." 

Paul  has  turned  the  Jew's  boast  upside  down.  It  is  not  the 
Gentile  who  must  come  to  the  Jew's  circumcision  for  salva- 
tion ;  it  is  the  Jew  who  must  come  to  a  Gentile  faith,  such  a 
faith  as  Abraham  had  long  before  he  was  circumcised.  Paul's 
reasoning  here  has  been  called  a  piece  of  "  rabbinical  scholas- 
ticism." Is  it  not  rather  a  plain  but  solid  exposition  of  the 
historic  facts  in  Abraham's  history? 

That  Abraham  circumcised  his  sons,  from  one  of  whom  the 
circumcised  Jewish  nation  according  to  the  flesh  sprang,  has 


76  THE   EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (IV.  12) 

nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  point  which  Paul  is  here  con- 
sidering. It  is  Abraham  himself  and  in  his  belief  that  is  the 
father  and  model  of  all  God's  people.  He  was  not  circum- 
cised to  be  saved ;  he  was  saved  by  faith  and  then  circumcised 
for  a  wholly  different  purpose,  as  Paul  has  shown,  that  he 
might  be  father  of  a  race  of  circumcised  men.  Faith  saves ; 
nothing  else  ever  did  or  ever  will.  Circumcision  is  a  pledge 
of  nationality,  because  Israel  as  a  race  is  never  to  cease. 
Faith  is  the  condition  of  life  for  all  men.  Circumcision  is  a 
token  of  the  headship  of  Israel  among  the  races  of  men— a 
headship  to  be  gained  when  Israel  as  a  nation  adopts  also 
Abraham's  faith.  Isaac's  circumcision  when  eight  days  old 
(Gen.  xxi.  4)  was  not,  as  in  Abraham's  case,  a  seal  of  right- 
eousness, for  the  babe  had  none.  And  what  did  Ishmael's 
circumcision  "  seal  "  ?  Ishmael  and  his  descent,  though  cir- 
cumcised, were  never  in  the  Jewish  covenant,  but  "  cast  out " 
(Gal.  iv.  30).  Men  have  never  been  able  to  rid  themselves  of 
the  delusion  that  circumcision  has  something  to  do  in  secur- 
ing salvation ;  but  Abraham  was  a  saved  man  many  years  be- 
fore the  rite  was  given.  Circumcision  secures  not  salvation, 
but  nationality.  Abraham  received  it  to  become  father  of  a 
faithful  circumcised  nation,  Isaac  to  perpetuate  the  national 
promise,  and  Ishmael  because  God  said,  "  Of  the  son  of  the 
bondwoman  will  I  make  a  7iation,  because  he  is  thy  seed  " 
(Gen.  xxi.  13).  When  Isaac  was  saved  he  was  not  saved  by 
his  circumcision  any  more  than  was  his  father  before  him. 
God  never  promised  salvation  except  to  faith;  he  never 
promised  a  perpetual  nationality  except  to  circumcised  men 
who  believe.  Abraham  is  head  and  father  of  both  kinds  of 
men.  Isaac  is  not ;  he  is  first  in  the  national  Hne.  Here  was 
the  Jew's  fatal  mistake.  He  practically  took  Isaac  in  his  eight- 
days-old  circumcision  for  the  model  of  a  saved  man,  and  not 
Abraham  in  his  faith. 
Another  error  on  this  verse  is  to  be  avoided— that  Paul  is 


(IV.  13)  RIGHTEOUSNESS  BY  FAITH  77 

showing  and  explaining  how  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  in  his  day 
came  together  in  the  church,  how  Abraham  was  the  father  of 
the  church  composed  of  both  kinds  of  people.  But  the  church 
knows  no  nationality,  and  Paul  is  not  considering  the  church 
in  this  epistle.  It  is  not  mentioned  till  the  argument  has 
closed.  The  theme  of  the  epistle  and  of  this  verse  is  world- 
wide, world-long  salvation  in  Christ,  in  which  all  men  shall 
share,  and  ultimately  the  Jew  as  a  Jew.  It  is  a  defense  not  of 
the  church,  but  of  faith.  The  Jew  thought  circumcision  saved  ; 
Paul  shows  that  it  only  points  to  nationahty  when  the  Jew  be- 
lieves. 

Can  the  question  still  be  asked,  "  What  is  the  profit  of  cir- 
cumcision? "  Paul  has  already  given  one  rich  word  in  reply 
(see  on  iii.  2) ;  here  he  has  conceded  that  Abraham  is  the 
national  head  of  the  Jews,  and  incidentally  that  their  promises, 
of  which  the  fleshly  mark  is  the  token,  still  stand  (xi.  28).  The 
full  answer  to  the  question  is  postponed,  for  here  his  main 
point  is  that  salvation  comes  only  and  wholly  by  faith. 

J  3*  "  For  the  promise,  that  he  should  be  the  heir  of  the 
world."  The  course  of  thought  still  depends  on  the  proposi- 
tion in  iii.  31,  that  salvation  by  faith  without  works  of  law 
estabHshes  the  law ;  it  conforms  to  the  law.  In  proof  of  this 
it  has  been  shown  from  that  same  law,  a  part  of  which  is  the 
history  of  Abraham,  that  he  was  saved  by  faith  and  he  was 
saved  before  that  prime  article  in  the  law,  circumcision  (Gal. 
V.  3),  was  given. 

With  this  thirteenth  verse  the  third  (3)  point  is  taken  up. 
Paul,  in  verses  11  and  12,  had  used  three  times  the  common 
Jewish  designation  for  Abraham,  "father."  Israel's  boast 
and  trust  was,'*  We  have  Abraham  to  our  father  "  (Matt.  iii.  9). 
As  father  he  had  obtained  in  promise  an  inheritance  for  him- 
self and  his  posterity,  in  accordance  with  which  promise  Isaac 
was  born.  Now  it  is  on  his  fatherhood  in  this  light  that  the 
"for"  of  this  verse  bears.     Paul  admits  with  the  Jew  that 


78  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS      (IV.  14,  15) 

Abraham  is  father  and  thereby  heir ;  but  as  he  becomes  father 
by  faith,  the  thing  already  proved,  so  he  also  becomes  heir  by 
faith.  This  last  must  be  argued,  and  the  word  '*  for  "  intro- 
duces the  proof.  The  patriarch  before  Judaism  existed  had 
obtained  the  grace  of  justification  not  as  a  Jew,  but  as  a  man ; 
but  in  addition  to  this  favor  he  also  got  the  promise  that  he 
and  his  seed  in  time  to  come  should  possess  the  world.  The 
Jews  contended,  even  the  best  of  them  (Acts  xv.  5),  that  the 
latter  favor  was  on  the  ground  of  law.  Paul  disputes  it.  His 
argument  is  not  drawn  from  Scripture,  but  from  the  faith  now 
proved  and  from  the  holiness  of  God.  This  thirteenth  verse 
does  no  more  than  to  deny  the  false  assumption  that  the  prom- 
ise of  heirship  to  Abraham  and  to  his  seed  was  to  be  realized 
by  means  of  the  Mosaic  law,  and  to  assert  that  that  promise 
is  to  be  made  good  by  means  of  a  faith  righteousness. 

J4*  If  the  assumption  were  true,  that  "they  which  are  of 
the  law,"  the  Jews  as  such,  were  heirs,  then  two  impossible 
things  must  be  conceded  to  follow:  first,  faith  is  out  of  the 
question,  "  is  made  void ;  "  and  secondly,  the  promise  itself  is 
nugatory  or  **  of  none  effect."  But  that  there  is  no  righteous- 
ness but  by  faith,  that  Abraham  obtained  his  righteousness  by 
faith,  has  already  been  proved.  Paul,  therefore,  does  not  argue 
this  point,  but  proceeds  to  discuss  the  next  one. 

J 5^  Why  would  the  promise  be  nugatory  if  conditioned  on 
the  keeping  of  the  law?  "Because  the  law"  cannot  realize 
any  promise  based  on  its  observance.  It  cannot  work  out  a 
promise  to  him  who  is  under  it,  for  he  does  not  keep  it,  and  so 
law  only  works  out  "  wrath  "  to  him.  God  is  holy  and  cannot 
suffer  the  least  infraction  of  his  commands ;  and  Paul  has  al- 
ready shown  the  whole  nation  under  sin  (iii.  9-20). 

"  For  no  law,  ...  no  transgression."  Instead  of  "  for  " 
all  modern  versions  read  "but."  Where  there  is  no  written 
law  man  is  still  in  sin.  God  expects  nothing  else  of  man,  and 
in  his  grace  can  provide  for  his  rescue,  and  is  not  hindered  by 


(IV.  i6)  RIGHTEOUSNESS  BY  FAITH  79 

transgression  in  showing  favor.  But  when  man  is  under  law  he 
adds  to  his  sin  the  aggravation  of  transgression,  and  the  divine 
grace  is  estopped.  It  is  shut  out  not  only  by  the  violation  of 
the  law,  but  by  the  holiness  of  God,  who  must  vindicate  his  law. 
Therefore  the  promise  of  heirship  was  given  to  faith  outside  of 
law  that  there  might  be  no  transgression  to  defeat  the  promise. 

\  6*  This  verse  concludes  and  so  repeats  the  proposition  under 
debate,  adding  some  amplifying  details.  It  begins  with  very  el- 
liptical language,  as  the  itahc  words  in  the  King  James  version 
indicate.  The  case  is  now  so  plain  that  Paul  rushes  to  the  con- 
clusion in  the  fewest  words :  "  Therefore  of  faith,  in  order  that 
according  to  grace."  The  ellipses  can  easily  be  suppHed  from 
what  precedes.  "  Therefore  [since  law  cannot  realize  anything 
but  wrath]  it  [the  promised  heritage]  is  of  faith  [or  "  by  faith  "], 
that  [in  order  that]  it  might  be  by  grace  [or  a  gift  to  believing 
sinners]."  Even  if  the  heritage  could  have  been  earned  by 
keeping  the  written  law,  none  but  the  Jews  had  the  law,  and  they 
only  would  have  been  heirs.  But  as  their  law  only  brought 
wrath  and  not  the  promise,  the  latter  could  have  come  to 
neither  party.  So  God  conditioned  it  on  faith,  which  is  pos- 
sible to  all  men,  **  to  the  end  [with  the  intent]  that  the  promise 
might  be  sure  [surely  given]  to  all  the  seed  [both  Jew  and  Gen- 
tile, as  the  rest  of  the  verse  declares]."  In  specifying  that 
part  of  the  seed  which  belongs  to  the  law  he  does  not  mention 
faith  again.  It  was  not  necessary,  because  this  had  just  been 
declared  to  be  the  condition  on  which  "all"  the  seed  could 
inherit.  Note  that,  while  the  twelfth  verse  refers  to  one  class, 
the  Jews,  with  two  characteristics,  this  verse  refers  to  both 
classes  with  but  one  characteristic,  faith. 

It  is  not  without  much  hesitancy,  even  after  prolonged  study, 
that  at  this  point  the  great  commentators  cannot  be  followed. 
Meyer,  Forbes,  Alford,  even  Bengel,  make  this  third  point  to 
be  a  further  discussion  of  justification  by  faith,  as  though  this 
were  synonymous  with  the  words  "  heir  of  the  world."     Godet 


80  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS         (IV.  i6) 

just  once  touches  on  what  is  the  matter  here  considered,  but 
then  immediately  drops  it :  "  BeHeving  Jews  and  Gentiles,  we 
all  participate  by  faith  not  only  in  justification,  but  also  in  the 
future  possession  of  the  world.^^  The  words  which  we  have 
italicized  in  this  quotation  are  the  key  to  this  third  point  in 
the  chapter.  The  subject  is  not  justification  ;  that  ended  with 
verse  12.  The  subject  is  clearly  and  unmistakably  announced 
at  the  head  of  the  paragraph — that  Abraham  and  his  seed  had 
\}[i^  promise  of  heirship  of  the  world  on  the  ground  of  faith.  The 
heirship  of  the  world  does  not  mean  that  Abraham  was  to  have 
an  elect  number  of  believers  in  all  nations,  that  he  was  to  be 
"  the  father,  federal  head,  and  pattern  of  all  them  that  believe  " 
(Forbes).  Abraham  was  set  forth  as  a  father  and  pattern  in 
the  second  section  (verses  9-12).  Why  should  Paul  be  sup- 
posed to  be  repeating  that,  especially  when  he  has  pointedly 
given  the  topic  of  this  third  section? 

Furthermore,  the  topic  is  not  that  Abraham  by  his  faith 
should  be  a  model  to  his  spiritual  progeny ;  both  he  and  they 
are  taken  together,  and  it  is  declared  of  the  father  and  the 
children  in  common  that  the  heirship  of  the  world  is  theirs. 
It  is  not  that  Abraham's  seed  is  such  only  by  faith,  but  that 
Abraham's  seed  gets  the  possession  of  the  world  by  faith. 

It  must  in  justice  be  said  that  Meyer  ("  Commentary,"  in 
loc,  pp.  205,  206,  T.  &  T.  Clark)  admits  this  view,  but  further 
along  he  seems  to  relapse  to  the  other.  The  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  must  be  studied  historically  and  not  as  a  theological 
thesis  on  faith.  The  Jews  of  Paul's  day  had  a  definite  and 
pronounced  eschatology,  easily  ascertained  (Luke  ii.  30-32), 
based  on  many  clear  promises  (Jer.  iii.  17,  18),  and  it  gives 
the  key  in  more  than  one  place ;  it  is  the  key  here.  By  the 
law  they  hoped  not  only  for  salvation,  but  for  universal  do- 
minion of  the  world.  Paul  no  more  denies  their  eschatologi- 
cal  hope  than  he  does  their  hope  of  salvation.  His  conten- 
tion so  far  is  not  only  that  both  can  be  realized  by  nothing 


(IV.  l^a,  lyd)        RIGHTEOUSNESS  BY  FAITH  81 

but  faith,  but  that  this  is  the  teaching  of  the  law  itself.  The 
law  promises  to  Abraham's  seed  the  possession  of  every  na- 
tion, but  that  possession  is  to  be  gained  by  faith. 

"Abraham,  who  is  the  father  of  us  all."  This  repetition 
of  what  we  already  had  in  verses  1 1  and  1 2  is  brought  in  here 
in  order  to  return  to  that  which  was  the  main  subject  there, 
faith,  whose  vital  element  must  be  considered  now  in  what  re- 
mains of  this  chapter. 

J7a»  "As  it  is  written."  The  quotation  is  cited  hardly  in 
confirmation  of  what  Paul  has  said,  but  to  show  the  harmony 
between  him  and  the  Scripture.  The  first  step  was  that  Abra- 
ham was  justified  by  faith ;  the  second,  that  he  was  justified  in 
uncircumcision,  and,  though  afterward  circumcised,  the  object 
was  not  salvation,  but  that  he  might  be  father  of  both  divi- 
sions of  men,  Gentile  and  Jew.  The  third  point  is  that  he  and 
the  men  who  make  him  father  are  heirs  of  the  world.  This 
heirship  is  not  by  law,  which  could  not  reahze  it.  And  so  as 
a  man  of  faith  he  is  not  only  father  of  all,  but  father  of  all  their 
hopes  for  world  supremacy.  It  was  to  him  as  a  behever  that 
it  was  said  that  he  should  be  a  father  of  many  nations.  Hence 
Paul's  doctrine  of  faith  conflicts  with  the  Jews'  Bible  neither 
in  the  matter  of  salvation  nor  in  the  matter  of  their  world  hope. 
"  Father,  .  .  .  before  him  [God]  whom  he  believed."  In 
God's  sight  he  was  a  father  by  faith  before  he  had  a  son. 
Why  should  the  Jews  labor  to  get  into  their  hands  by  law 
what  they  may  have  at  once  in  God's  purpose  by  the  faith  of 
Abraham  ? 

J7L  ''  Even  God,  who  quickeneth  the  dead."  Here  begins 
the  fourth  (4)  point  above.  These  first  words  show  in  what 
character  of  God  Abraham  beHeved  in  him.  The  present  tense 
shows  what  is  always  true  of  God.  If  a  Jew  says  he  beheves 
as  sincerely  as  Paul,  it  cannot  be  denied ;  but  suppose  he  com- 
plains that  Paul  in  presenting  Jesus  as  an  object  of  faith  is  de- 
manding a  different  faith  from  that  in  the  Old  Testament,  this 


82  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS     (IV.  i8,  19) 

can  be  shown  to  be  false.  Old  Testament  faith  rests  on  resup 
rection.  Acceptable  faith  is  not  merely  the  conviction  that 
there  is  a  God  and  that  he  is  benevolent  and  a  just  rewarder 
of  the  good  and  evil;  this  is  the  world's  faith.  Abraham's 
was  more  ;  he  became  the  father  of  many  nations  by  beheving 
in  God  as  one  "  who  quickeneth  the  dead."  He  not  only  be- 
lieved in  God's  existence  and  that  he  could  bless ;  this  is  not 
sufficient ;  he  beheved  that  that  blessing  could  only  come  from 
God  as  now  active  in  nature  for  spiritual  ends — a  spiritual 
creator  just  as  once  he  was  a  creator  of  nature.  Faith  gets  its 
character  from  that  character  in  which  it  accepts  God.  Abra- 
ham looked  on  him  as  one  who  in  spite  of  nature  is  making 
alive  the  dead.  This  is  the  leading  thought  in  this  section. 
God  calls  the  things  that  are  not,  not  in  the  possibihties  of 
nature,  as  if  they  already  were ;  he  calls  them  into  existence. 
Natural  nations  come  in  the  course  of  nature ;  but  when  God 
asked  Abraham  to  look  to  the  stars  and  said,  ''So  shall  thy 
seed  be,"  did  he  mean  a  natural  seed  and  natural  nations? 
Isaac  was  not  a  child  of  nature,  but  a  child  of  faith,  and 
Abraham's  seed  are  not  children  of  nature. 

J8^  "  Who  against  [all  rational]  hope  beHeved  in  hope,"  the 
supernatural  hope  which  God's  promise  awakened.  Let  the 
Jew  who  thinks  that  he  is  Abraham's  son  reflect  that  Isaac, 
from  whom  all  sprang,  was  brought  into  being  by  the  same 
power  that  raised  Christ  from  the  dead. 

J9»  "  He  considered  not  his  own  body."  The  "  not "  is  in 
dispute ;  critics  are  divided  on  its  genuineness.  Whether  we 
read  it  or  do  not  read  it,  the  sense  is  much  the  same.  In  the 
former  view  it  would  be  said  that  Abraham's  faith  was  so  strong 
that  he  never  once  looked  at  the  tremendous  difficulty  in  the 
way  of  his  becoming  a  father.  Weak  faith  looks  at  difficulties 
and  scarce  looks  to  God.  Strong  faith  looks  at  God  who  has 
promised,  and  does  not  see  the  difficulties.  In  the  other  view 
Abraham  did  "consider"  the  difficulties,  his  own  body  now 


(IV.  20,  21)  RIGHTEOUSNESS  BY  EAITH  83 

dead  and  the  deadness  of  Sarah's  womb,  but  still  believed. 
He  estimated  the  hindrances  at  their  full  weight,  but  did  not 
"  stagger  "  under  the  load. 

20^  2\*  Abraham's  faith  was  threefold.  Two  elements  are 
already  given :  the  character  of  his  faith  in  that  it  accepted 
what  is  tantamount  to  the  resurrection,  and  the  strength  of  his 
faith  in  that  it  was  superior  to  all  hindrances  in  its  way.  The 
third  element  is  its  worshipfulness.  By  it  he  gave  "  glory  to 
God  " ;  he  did  this  by  trusting  God  where  reason  could  not 
follow.  When  faith's  only  reason  is  God  himself  it  honors 
and  worships  him. 

These  three  elements  are  now  summed  up  in  what  might  be 
called  Abraham's  creed.  It  is  simple,  but  comprehensive. 
The  character  which  he  ascribed  to  God,  his  estimate  of  the 
difficulties,  and  his  worship  come  to  this :  a  confident  persua- 
sion that  what  God  had  promised  he  was  able  also  to  perform. 

Any  one  can  beheve  in  God's  power  abstractly.  Every  one 
that  beheves  there  is  a  personal  God  beheves  also  that  he  is 
omnipotent ;  but  saving  faith  stands  alone  in  saying  that  God 
can  make  his  supernatural  promises  good.  What  is  not  as- 
cribed to  God's  word  is  not  ascribed  to  him ;  and  the  heart  is 
only  cheating  itself  into  self-deception  on  one  side  or  supersti- 
tion on  the  other  that  believes  something  else  than  what  he 
has  revealed.  A  man's  measure  of  God's  word  is  the  measure 
of  that  man's  faith  in  God. 

It  might  be  thought  that  Abraham  should  have  believed  in 
God's  willingness  rather  than  in  his  ability  to  carry  out  his 
promise ;  that  the  question  is  not  what  the  Almighty  can  do, 
but  what  he  will  do ;  that  the  account  should  read,  "  that  what 
God  has  promised  he  will  perform."  But  God's  will  is  already 
indicated  in  the  promise  to  make  Abraham  a  father  of  many 
nations ;  his  word  is  his  will.  The  only  question  is.  Can  he 
bring  that  supernatural  promise  to  a  reality?  Any  heart  can 
say  that  God  can  do  natural  things;  faith   says  he  can  do 


84  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS    (IV.  22-25) 

things  beyond  and  above  nature.  And  all  God's  saving  prom- 
ises transcend  nature ;  they  rest  on  the  supernatural. 

22*  "And  therefore  it  was  imputed."  The  word  "there- 
fore "  is  instructive  and  impressive.  Because  his  faith  stood 
on  the  word  of  God, — a  word  that  nothing  in  nature  could 
explain, — because  his  faith  was  of  this  character,  it  "was  im- 
puted to  him  for  righteousness."  There  is  a  natural  faith  that 
can  accept  much,  and  it  is  beautiful  and  salutary,  but  its  high- 
est exercise  does  not  attain  to  justification.  It  falls  far  below 
Abraham's  in  that  he  trusted  in  a  personal  promise  which 
nothing  but  the  direct  activity  of  the  God  who  gave  it  could 
make  good.  This  is  supernatural  faith,  and  only  such  is  im- 
puted for  righteousness. 

23,  24.  Paul  in  citing  Abraham's  faith  declares  that  its  de- 
scription is  not  primarily  in  honor  of  the  patriarch.  The  story 
is  not  written  for  his  sake  alone,  "but  for  us  also."  If  the 
patriarch  found  righteousness  by  believing  in  God  as  one  who 
quickeneth  the  dead,  is  the  apostle's  insistence  upon  faith  in  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  an  unscriptural  demand?  Paul  asks  no 
more  than  Abraham  exhibited  in  his  life.  He  asks  the  same 
—faith  in  God  who  raises  the  dead.  The  Jew  beUeved  in  one 
God;  he  did  well;  but  this  was  not  the  whole  of  his  great 
ancestor's  faith,  who  believed  also  in  resurrection.  On  the 
ground  of  such  faith  he  was  saved,  and  no  one  can  be  saved 
on  any  other. 

25*  "  Who  was  delivered  for,  .  .  .  raised  for."  Why  was 
this  twenty-fifth  verse  added?  Why  did  the  story  not  close 
with  the  twenty-fourth?  To  show  that  the  faith  that  saves  is 
not  faith  in  the  act  of  resurrection,  but  in  its  import.  He  who 
is  justified  must  believe  not  only  that  Jesus  died  and  rose  again, 
but  why.  He  died  "  for  our  offenses."  This  word  "  offenses  " 
brings  to  view  again  the  whole  somber  picture  of  the  first  main 
division  of  the  epistle,  the  division  about  sin.  Sin  was  such 
that  nothing  but  the  blood  of  Jesus  our  Lord  could  atone  for 


(IV.  25)  RIGHTEOUSNESS  BY  FAITH  85 

it.  But  his  death  does  atone,  and  therefore  no  works  of  law 
find  any  place  in  justification.  And  so  it  comes  to  pass  that 
he  who  believes  in  the  resurrection  beheves  first  of  all  that 
his  own  personal  sins  sent  Jesus  to  the  cross  and  the  tomb, 
that  he  was  the  all-sufficient  sacrifice  for  sins.  It  is  only  pain- 
ful conviction  of  sin  that  can  believe  in  this  way. 

But  if  faith  stopped  at  the  tomb  it  would  be  only  an  agony. 
It  also  sees  that,  while  Jesus  died  for  sins,  that  death  was  ac- 
cepted as  the  ransom  price  (iii.  24),  and  so  Jesus  was  raised 
again.  He  who  became  surety  for  the  sinner's  debt  could  not 
have  been  released  from  the  prison-house  of  the  tomb  unless 
the  debt  was  paid.  His  reappearance  from  the  tomb  is  an 
everlasting  proof  of  the  sufficiency  of  his  atonement  for  our 
sins ;  and  he  who  really  believes  in  the  resurrection  befieves 
that  the  guilt  of  his  sins  is  canceled.  Faith  is  no  longer  an 
agony,  but  a  joy,  and  the  believer's  heart  is  set  not  merely  on 
the  historic  (2  Cor.  v.  16),  but  on  the  raised  Christ.  That  he 
was  dehvered  for  our  offenses  is  pain;  that  he  was  raised 
again  for  our  justification  is  pure  spiritual  delight. 

To  believe  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  then,  is  to  accept  the 
two  prime  articles  in  the  Christian  creed,  sin  and  grace ;  sin 
that  slew  Jesus,  and  grace  that  accepts  him  for  our  justification. 

In  this  sentence,  "  delivered  for,  .  .  .  raised  for,"  it  is  easy 
to  misunderstand  the  preposition.  This  comes  because  the 
mind  unconsciously  gives  a  different  meaning  to  the  two  in- 
stances of  the  same  word,  "For"  means  not  only  "with  a 
view  to,"  but  also  ''because  of."  It  cannot  have  one  of  these 
in  one  case,  and  the  other  meaning  in  the  second ;  the  paral- 
lel between  the  two  clauses  will  not  allow  this.  The  first 
"  for  "  cannot  have  the  meaning  "  with  a  view  to  " ;  it  must 
be  "because  of."  Hence  the  second  "for"  has  the  same 
signification ;  he  was  raised  not  with  a  view  to,  but  because 
of,  our  justification,  just  as  he  was  delivered  because  of  our 
offenses. 


86  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (IV.  25) 

The  difficulty  raised  is  in  assigning  the  sinner's  justification 
to  the  time  of  the  resurrection,  and  not  to  the  time  when  he 
beh'eves ;  but  this  is  the  manner  and  confidence  of  Paul.  Else- 
where he  refers  the  believer's  regeneration,  resurrection,  and 
even  glorification  all  to  the  same  moment,  and  that  moment 
the  resurrection  and  exaltation  of  Christ  (viii.  30;  Eph.  ii. 
5,  6).  The  difficult  language,  when  resolved,  furnishes  great 
gain  to  faith.  To  be  sure,  no  man  has  justification  until  he 
exercises  evangelical  faith ;  but  the  moment  he  does  that  his 
faith  may  be  assured  of  its  foundation.  It  does  not  rest  on 
its  own  activity  or  in  any  experience,  but  at  once  finds  its  sure 
basis  at  the  empty  tomb  ;  it  rests  on  the  gospel.  The  man  was 
justified  in  his  believing,  but  not  because  of  his  believing. 
The  cause  is  the  grace  of  God  made  sure  by  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus. 

But  when  it  is  said  above  that  Jesus'  reappearance  from  the 
tomb  is  a  proof  of  the  atonement,  and  when  it  is  said  just 
now  that  the  resurrection  makes  grace  sure,  this  by  no  means 
exhausts  its  office  and  efficacy  in  the  means  of  salvation.  The 
penalty  of  sin  is  death,  and  man  was  under  it ;  he  had  lost 
spiritual  life.  The  resurrection  restored  it ;  for  when  Paul  says 
Christ  was  raised  for  our  justification,  he  uses  the  word  not  in 
our  modern  theologic  sense,  but  in  an  inclusive  one  that  em- 
braces all  that  is  contained  in  viii.  1,2.  (See  remarks  on  Paul's 
use  of  this  term  just  above  the  comment  on  iii.  21.) 

It  is  shown  now  that  the  law  as  recorded  in  Genesis  proves 
(i)  justification  by  faith,  (2)  in  uncircumcision  ;  (3)  the  promise 
of  heirship  by  faith ;  (4)  and  that  the  required  faith  in  Jesus  is 
the  same  in  character  as  that  which  Abraham  had. 


CHAPTER   V 

JUSTIFICATION    BY    FAITH    SECURES   THE    FINAL    SALVATION 
OF    BELIEVERS 

The  rigid  harmony  in  four  elementary  points  between  the 
law  and  faith  having  been  now  exhibited,  a  new  question 
arises,  a  question  of  hope :  Will  faith  save  at  last,  and  will  it 
save  all,  both  Jew  and  Gentile?  The  two  classes  of  men  are 
not  mentioned,  but  the  discussion  has  a  race-wide  view  that 
embraces  all.  In  favor  of  the  affirmative  Paul  makes  three 
points  as  the  sure  ground  of  hope:  (i)  afflictions  will  not  de- 
stroy, but  strengthen  it  (verses  2-4) ;  (2)  it  has  a  sure  basis 
in  God's  love  toward  the  justified  man  (verses  5-1 1);  (3)  as 
man's  relation  to  Adam  never  fails  to  bring  death  on  account 
of  his  one  sin,  so  the  behever's  similar  relation  to  Christ  cannot 
fail  to  secure  everlasting  life  on  account  of  Christ's  one  right- 
eous act  at  the  cross  (verses  12-21). 

Many  commentators  have  entitled  this  chapter  the  "  Fruits 
of  Justification."  This  fails  in  both  logic  and  history.  Paul's 
first  readers  would  be  amazed  to  hear  him  speak  here  about 
fruits.  Their  cry  would  be,  Is  this  method  safe?  Doing  no 
works  of  law,  what  assurance  does  this  faith  in  Christ's  work 
give  one  for  the  future?  Furthermore,  fruits  are  immediate 
results  in  experience  and  do  not  need  the  rigid  logical  proofs 
exhibited  in  this  chapter.  And  what  "  fruit "  is  there  in  the 
parallel  between  Adam  and  Christ? 

87 


88  THE  EPISTLE    TO   THE  ROMANS        (V.  i,  2) 

J,  "Therefore,"  etc.  In  view  of  the  previous  exposition 
of  the  doctrine,  it  can  be  said  of  "being  justified  by  faith" 
that  "  we  have  peace  with  God."  For  "  we  have  "  many  read 
"let  us  have."  In  favor  of  the  former  stands  the  American 
portion  of  the  Revision  Committee,  as  well  as  Meyer,  Godet, 
and  others.  Meyer  says  the  imperative  is  "  utterly  unsuitable  " 
to  the  sense.  The  question  turns  on  the  length  of  a  single  vowel, 
and  the  manuscripts  are  not  trustworthy  on  this  point ;  they  fre- 
quently confound  long  and  short  o.     The  logic  must  decide. 

"  Peace  "  does  not  mean  primarily  tranquillity  of  mind,  but 
that  state  of  things  ensuing  from  the  cessation  of  hostihties, 
freedom  from  strife  (iii.  17;  Acts  xii.  20).  This  peaceful 
state  came  "through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  who  averted  the- 
wrath  of  God.  It  is  possible  by  not  noting  this  meaning  of 
the  word  "peace"  that  the  mode  of  the  verb  was  changed. 
For  justification  gives  peace  in  this  sense  even  when  there  may 
be  no  settled  tranquillity  of  the  heart. 

2.  ''  By  whom  .  .  .  access  by  faith."  The  "  grace "  to 
which  Christ  gives  access  is  the  grace  of  justification.  The  first 
and  the  second  verses  both  revolve  about  Christ.  Through 
him  we  have  the  peace ;  he  procured  it ;  and  through  him  by 
faith  we  gained  access  to  justification,  wherein  the  peace 
exists.  The  first  verse  looks  at  the  standing  of  the  believer,  and 
the  second  recalls  the  hour  of  attaining  it.  The  first  verse  has 
in  view  the  redemption  wrought  at  the  cross ;  but  it  is  only  the 
justified  man  who  gets  it,  and  this  justification  is  administered 
by  God  through  Christ  in  ^he  hour  of  conversion.  The  senti. 
ment  of  these  two  verses  up  to  this  word  "  stand  "  is  just  a 
repetition  of  iii.  24,  a  verse,  with  its  context,  that  clearly  im- 
plies the  "  peace  "  and  the  standing  of  justification  by  faith 
unfolded  in  these  two.  When  justified  freely  by  God's  grace 
men  have  peace,  and  they  have  also  a  permanent  standing  as 
acquitted  persons  before  God.  The  idea  of  permanence  is 
doubly  furnished  by  the  tense  of  the  two  verbs  "  have  "  and 


(V.  2)  JUSTIFICdTION  BY  FAITH  89 

"  Stand."  These  two  verses  up  to  this  point,  in  unfolding  iii. 
24,  do  in  some  sen^e  show  what  may  be  called  fruits — peace 
and  standing.  But  this  beginning  of  chapter  v.  is,  after  all, 
but  a  repetition,  a  restatement,  of  what  was  given  before,  that 
we  might  start  from  the  same  point  on  a  new  line  of  discus- 
sion, the  permanence  of  justification  already  hinted  at  in  the 
two  verbs  above,  ''have"  and  ''stand."  Until  this  latter 
word  is  reached  there  is  no  advance ;  it  begins  with  the  very 
next  sentence — "We  .  .  .  rejoice  in  hope  of  the  glory  of 
God."  This  is  the  new  theme:  Is  this  hope  well  founded? 
Is  rejoicing  in  it  defensible? 

What  was  said  above  on  the  reading"  let  us  have  "  is  equally 
true  here  on  the  wrong  reading  "let  us  rejoice."  The  King 
James  version  is  correct. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  moment  this  new  proposition  is 
reached,  after  the  restatement  in  verses  i  and  2  of  what  went 
before,  the  proposition  that  justification  by  faith  is  permanent, 
the  word  "  faith,"  both  noun  and  verb,  is  dropped.  We  have 
up  to  this  moment  had  them  constantly  before  our  eyes — the 
verb  nine  times,  and  the  noun  twenty-seven  times.  Neither 
occurs  again  until  ix.  30,  unless  for  the  verb  the  solitary  in- 
stance in  vi.  8  be  counted  an  exception.  But  it  is  not,  for  in 
this  place  the  word  has  rather  the  idea  of  being  persuaded. 
(See  John  xx.  8,  25,  27.) 

The  reason  for  dropping  this  leading  word  is  obvious.  Since 
it  is  the  permanence  of  a  faith  justification  which  is  to  be 
proved,  that  permanence  must  be  established  by  other  means 
than  faith.  If  the  latter  should  even  once  enter  into  the 
question  we  should  have  a  petitio  prificipii,  a  begging  of  the 
question,  and  the  inquiry,  But  what  about  my  salvation  if  my 
faith  fails?  would  be  legitimate.  Faith  is,  after  all,  a  personal 
experience,  and  the  argument  cannot  be  drawn  from  it.  It  is 
itself  to  be  shown  in  its  permanence,  and  the  proofs  are  all 
brought  from  other  and  higher  sources, 


90  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (V.  3,  4) 

3,  4.  "  Tribulations,  .  .  .  patience,  .  .  .  experience,  .  .  . 
hope."  For  "  we  glory  "  in  the  third  verse  read  "  we  rejoice," 
as  in  the  second.  The  believer  not  only  exults  in  the  glory 
awaiting  him  on  the  ground  of  his  justification,  but  he  exults, 
too,  in  the  tribulations  or  afflictions  which  beset  him  in  the 
path  leading  to  the  glory.  The  latter  rejoicing  comes  about 
because  he  is  ''  knowing  "  the  influence  of  these.  They  do 
not  destroy  his  hope,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  by  a  regular  pro- 
cess strengthen  it.  The  storm-shaken  tree  roots  the  deeper. 
Justification  does  not  give  patience,  constancy,  or  endurance ; 
this  quality  does  not  come  at  the  hour  of  conversion,  but  the 
trials  and  buffetings  of  the  way  thereafter  serve  to  evoke  it. 
A  man  with  some  worthy  thing  in  view,  like  the  glory  of  God, 
is  prepared  to  withstand  trials ;  but  he  who  has  no  hope  in  the 
future  frets  under  afflictions  or  seeks  to  avoid  them. 

When  tribulations  have  taught  the  believer  that  he  can  stand, 
or  withstand,  there  ensues  "  experience  "  of  the  world,  but 
especially  of  himself.  He  has  learned  that  he  can  endure.  The 
first  storm  may  frighten  the  young  sailor  in  guiding  his  craft ; 
but  after  he  has  passed  through  a  score  unharmed  and  with- 
out seeing  a  timber  start,  he  knows  the  worst  the  sea  can  do, 
the  strength  of  his  vessel  to  carry  him,  and  his  own  ability  to 
steer.  The  man  of  experience  is  the  proved  man.  The  word 
"  experience  "  has  been  translated  "  approval."  Others  know 
him  now,  but,  more  than  all,  he  knows  himself.  The  "  proba- 
tion "  of  the  Revised  Version  is  misleading  and  is  not  as  good 
as  the  King  James's  "  experience."  When  one  finds  that  for 
the  sake  of  his  hope  he  can  suffer  pain,  and  that  God  is  with 
him  all  through  it,  he  has  gained  confidence  in  himself 
before  God.  He  knows  that  this  ark  to  which  he  has  resorted 
will  carry  him.  And  now  the  hope  that  he  gained  in  the  hour 
of  justification  he  has  gained  anew  in  the  discovery  that  it  sus- 
tains him  in  the  conflict.  And  it  does  not  make  ashamed. 
Thus  Paul  has  made  his  first  point.      The   hope   of   glory 


(V.  5,  6)  JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  91 

through  justification  by  faith  cannot  be  destroyed  by  tribula- 
tions, because  instead  of  overthrowing  they  strengthen  it.  This 
topic,  so  briefly  treated  here,  is  taken  up  at  length  in  chapter 
viii.     (See  p.  55.) 

5.  "The  love  of  God."  This  is  the  second  argument  in 
favor  of  the  theme  restated  now  in  a  new  form — '*  hope  maketh 
not  ashamed."  The  justified  man  does  not  blush  to  profess 
this  hope,  because  he  has  a  proof  that  it  will  not  disappoint 
him  at  last.  Without  this  proof  his  hope  would  be  madness ; 
for  who  is  he?  A  justified  man,  to  be  sure,  but  far  from  per- 
fect, beset  with  sin,  full  of  ignorance,  and  with  no  act  of  his 
life  for  which  he  can  claim  perfection.  And  yet  he  hopes  to 
stand  before  God,  to  be  admitted  to  his  glory,  and  to  be  an 
equal  heir  with  his  own  Son.  It  is  as  if  a  barbarous  and  coarse 
Central  African  prince  should  boast  that  he  expects  shortly  to 
be  son-in-law  to  the  good  Queen  of  England.  His  claim 
would  be  ridiculed  by  all  knowing  people  as  the  raving  of  de- 
lusion. But  if  the  vulgar  prince  could  show  on  the  finger  of 
his  black  hand  that  royal  gem,  the  Koh-i-noor,  presented  to 
him  by  the  queen  and  brought  to  him  by  the  third  in  rank  in 
the  government,  his  boast  would  be  justified.  That  he  has  it  in 
his  possession  is  proof  that  it  came  to  him  as  a  gift ;  he  could 
neither  buy  nor  steal  that  costly  precious  stone.  The  hope  of 
glory  does  not  make  ashamed,  because  the  priceless  jewel  of 
God's  love  toward  the  sinner  is  in  the  latter's  possession,  poured 
out  in  his  heart  by  the  third  person  in  the  Trinity,  "  the  Holy 
Spirit  which  is  given  unto  us."  This  language  makes  it  plain 
that  it  is  not  the  justified  man's  love  toward  God,  but  God's 
love  toward  the  man,  that  is  the  proof  and  pledge  of  the  valid- 
ity of  his  hope. 

6»  "  For  .  .  .  Christ  died."  The  "  for "  does  not  intro- 
duce a  proof  of  the  possession  of  the  love,  but  of  its  nature. 
The  possession  need  not  be  proved,  being  as  it  is  a  matter  of 
experience.     But  if  the  African  prince  knows  neither  the  na- 


92  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (V.  7,  8) 

ture  nor  the  value  of  his  gem,  if  he  looks  upon  it  as  a  common 
stone,  what  evidence  can  it  be  to  him?  It  is  not  merely  the 
fact  of  God's  love  toward  the  behever,  but  its  unearthly  char- 
acter, that  fortifies  hope.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  channel 
through  which  God  is  pouring  the  love  of  his  heart  into  the 
sinner's.  We  are  carried  now  to  the  fountainhead  of  the 
blessed  stream  to  study  this  love  in  its  source.  When  "  we 
were  yet  without  strength  "  to  do  right  this  love  gave  Christ 
to  die.  How  contemptible  is  he  who  lacks  the  moral  ability 
to  do  that  which  is  right!  Christ  died  for  the  pusillanimous. 
But  while  sinners  were  imbeciles  for  good,  they  were  mighty 
for  evil— "ungodly."  In  the  former  condition  they  excite 
disgust,  in  the  latter,  wrath,  and  each  righteous  feeling  against 
them  reacts  against  the  other  to  heighten  it.  But  for  just  such 
Christ  died  "  in  due  time."  The  timeliness  of  his  death  in  its 
averting  the  wrath  due  enhances  the  love  manifested  at  the  cross. 
ly  8*  *'  God  commendeth  his  love."  The  sixth  verse  clearly 
implies  the  unearthly  character  which  these  two  verses  now 
prove.  The  "  for  "  bears  on  this  unearthliness ;  the  appeal  is 
to  what  is  known  in  the  history  of  men.  For  a  "righteous 
man,"  the  man  who  conforms  to  the  law,  one  would  "  scarcely  " 
die.  The  *lyet"  in  the  seventh  verse  should  be  rendered 
"  for,"  as  it  is  in  the  Revision.  It  explains  the  word  "  scarce- 
ly." I  say  scarcely  for  a  righteous  man  would  one  die.  I 
leave  room  for  an  exception,  for  when  the  righteous  man  is 
that  and  something  more,  so  that  he  could  be  called  "  good," 
it  might  be  that  "some  [one]  would  even  dare  to  die."  In 
New  Testament  terminology  to  be  good  is  much  more  than  to 
be  righteous  (Mark  x.  18).  The  former  word  is  rarely  used 
of  men,  and  to  die  in  behalf  of  this  loftiest  form  of  righteous- 
ness is  the  very  utmost  of  earthly  love,  and  rare  in  its  exam- 
ples at  that.  "  But  God  "—what  a  sharp  contrast,  the  differ- 
ence of  earth  and  heaven!  — gave  his  Son  to  die  for  sinners. 
flis  love  has  no  parallel  among  men  ;  it  is  divine.     What  men 


(V.  9,  lo)  JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  93 

can  scarcely  do  for  the  good  God  has  done  abundantly  for  the 
vile  and  the  despicable. 

9^  Having  shown  what  God's  love  to  sinners  is,  he  draws 
the  necessary  and  logical  inferences.  If  he  could  do  so  much 
for  them,  "  much  more  "  now  can  he  save  from  the  "  wrath  " 
to  come  those  who  are  "  justified  by  his  [Christ's]  blood."  In 
the  New  Testament  men  are  said  to  be  "justified  by  grace" 
(iii.  24) ;  "justified  by  faith  "  (v.  i,  and  many  other  places) ; 
"justified  by  works  "  (James  ii.  21) ;  but  this  is  the  solitary  in- 
stance in  which  "  justified  by  blood  "  occurs.  Grace  is  the 
source  of  justification,  faith  the  condition,  works  the  evidence ; 
but  what  i?  it  to  be  justified  by  blood,  and  why  did  Paul  use 
this  term  here  rather  than  his  favorite  one,  "justified  by 
faith  "?  The  blood  is  the  means,  not  to  say  the  ground,  of  the 
justification,  and  the  phrase  is  about  equivalent  to  that  other 
in  iii.  24,  "justified  .  .  .  through  the  redemption  that  is  in 
Christ  Jesus."  Paul  could  not  use  the  phrase  "justified  by 
faith  "  here  for  the  reason  given  above  under  verse  2  (p.  89), 
that  it  is  this  very  kind  of  justification  that  is  to  be  proved. 
Will  it  give  security  in  the  hour  of  God's  coming  wrath?  Yes ; 
for  it  is  made  sure  by  the  redeeming  blood.  Man's  faith  does 
not  appeal  to  God,  but  Christ's  blood  does.  The  argument, 
then,  comes  to  this :  if  man  in  his  odious  sin  found  the  favor 
of  God,  how  much  more  shall  that  man  have  his  favor  whom 
he  accounts  right  on  the  ground  of  redeeming  blood! 

to*  The  conclusion  in  the  ninth  verse,  deduced  from  the 
character  of  God's  love,  becomes  also  a  proposition  to  be  sup- 
ported by  the  argument  in  the  tenth.  Hence  the  latter  begins 
with  the  causal  word  "  for."  The  "  if  "  following  does  not  ex- 
press doubt,  but,  as  in  many  other  places,  is  equivalent  to 
"since";  it  introduces  the  admitted  basis  upon  which  the 
proof  follows.  The  argument  here  is  in  the  form  of  a  triple 
antithesis,  like  that  in  Mark  vii.  8.  It  can  be  exhibited  to  the 
eye  thus ; 


94  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (V.  lo) 


I. 

2. 

3- 

Enemies      .  . 

.   reconciled  to  God  .  , 

.  .  death, 

Reconciled  .  . 

saved             .  . 

.  .    life. 

That  is,  (i)  if  God  could  do  so  much  for  his  enemies,  what 
can  he  not  do  now  for  those  who  are  in  a  reconciled  state? 
Again,  (2)  if  God  could  become  reconciled  with  men  when 
enemies,  can  he  not  remain  reconciled  (which  insures  their  be- 
ing "  saved  ")  now  that  they  have  become  friends?  And  once 
more,  (3)  if  the  death  of  Christ,  a  negative  power,  could  do  so 
much  (reconcile),  what  will  not  his  life,  his  active  energy  on 
high  in  their  behalf,  what  will  not  his  ever  living,  insure  ?  This 
threefold  antithesis  in  argument  is  not  merely  three  times  as 
weighty  as  a  single  one,  but  nine  times. 

The  word  "  reconciled  "  occurs  twice  in  this  verse :  "  were 
reconciled  to  God,"  "being  reconciled."  The  first  does  not 
indicate  any  change  in  the  feelings  of  man ;  it  is  the  equiva- 
lent and  takes  the  place  of  "  justified  by  his  blood  "  in  the  pre- 
vious verse.  It  does  not  signify  that  man  was  active  in  the 
reconcihation,  but  God  was,  "in  that  he  desists  from  his  claims" 
(Cremer,  "Theol.  Lex,"  sub  voce).  He  estabhshed  a  new  re- 
lation with  men,  exchanging  the  relation  in  wrath  for  the 
blessed  relation  in  love.  He  became  appeased  toward  us  in 
the  death  of  his  Son.  The  second  occurrence  of  the  word 
gives  the  result  of  the  first.  The  first  is  God's  act,  the  second 
the  standing  into  which  "we  "  are  brought  by  means  of  the  first. 

The  word  "enemies"  is  also  passive.  It  is  not  that  men 
were  inimical  to  God, — a  fact,  to  be  sure, — but  that  he  was 
inimical  to  them.  This  anger  is  not  inconsistent  with  his  lov- 
ing them  at  the  same  time. 

This  matter  is  given  in  2  Corinthians  v.  19,  20 :  "  God  was 
[not  "  is  "]  in  Christ,  reconcil  ing  the  world  unto  himself.   .  . 
Be  ye  reconciled  to  God."     He  changed  toward  you ;  do  you 
change  toward  him. 


(V.  II,  12)  JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  05 

n#  "  And  not  only  so,"  not  only  reconciled,  but  at  the  same 
time  rejoicing  in  God.  The  change  did  not  stop  with  that 
which  was  outward,  in  an  altered  standing ;  it  was  and  remains 
accompanied  with  an  inward  exultation— the  effect  of  the  love 
shed  abroad  in  the  heart.  The  argument  has  come  around  to 
that  with  which  it  began  :  **  we  rejoice  in  hope  of  the  glory  of 
God  "  (verse  2).  This  rejoicing  is  "  through  [by  means  of]  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  ["  by  means  of  whom  "  again] 
we  have  now  received  the  reconciliation  [the  changed  attitude 
of  God  toward  us]."  It  is  ours  *'now."  The  word  "atone- 
ment "  in  its  modern  signification  of  propitiation  or  satisfac- 
tion by  the  death  of  Christ  is  not  correct  here.  The  original 
word  is  the  same  one  used  twice  in  the  tenth  verse.    <^  /x*^^^ 

It  has  not  been  sufficiently  noted  by  expositors  that  the 
word  "received"  is  not  active,  but  passive,  equivalent  to 
"made  recipients  of."  The  argument  for  the  "assurance  of 
salvation  secured  for  the  present  and  the  future  "  (Meyer)  is 
conducted  wholly  from  the  divine  side ;  man  and  his  believing 
do  not  come  into  view.  If  it  is  objected  that,  after  all,  faith  is 
a  necessary  condition  of  salvation,  and  if  it  fails  all  fails,  why, 
this  very  point  is  secured  by  the  whole  argument.  If  when 
we  were  hateful  to  God  he  changed  toward  us,  will  he — now 
that  we  have  been  made  recipients  in  his  grace  of  that  saving 
change — will  he  now  not  insure  the  condition  of  its  perpetu- 
ity? Will  God  care  for  everything  concerning  the  believer, 
support  him  in  trials,  shield  him  in  temptation,  shed  his  love 
abroad  in  his  heart,  but  leave  him  to  himself  in  the  vital  point, 
his  faith?  The  reconciled  man's  faith  is  the  first  and  the  chief 
object  of  the  divine  care.  The  single  aim  of  the  argument  is 
the  permanence  oijustificatio7i  by  faitK 

\2^  With  this  verse  begins  the  third  (see  (3)  above)  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  the  proposition  of  the  chapter,  that  justifica- 
tion by  faith  gives  a  sure  hope  of  the  glory  of  God.  The 
proof  is  found  in  the  likeness  of  Adam  and  Christ  in  their  re- 


96  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (V.  12) 

lation  to  those  who  are  in  them  respectively.  As  Adam's  one 
sin  never  fails  to  bring  death,  so  Christ's  one  righteous  act  in 
behalf  of  sinners  never  fails  to  bring  the  opposite  award  to 
those  who  are  in  him.  This  is  the  simple  course  of  thought 
easily  traced  through  this  section,  but  the  details  present  seri- 
ous difficulties. 

"  Wherefore,"  or,  as  the  Revised  Version,  "  Therefore." 
Literally  it  reads,  "  On  this  account."  This  shows  that  the 
chain  of  thought  is  not  broken ;  the  topic  is  the  same  as  in 
the  first  eleven  verses  of  the  chapter.  The  connection  is  this : 
because  through  Christ  we  received  the  reconciliation  and  the 
assurance  of  eternal  salvation,  we  can  say  this  which  follows. 
Paul  goes  now  to  the  germ  of  the  disease  on  the  one  hand,  and 
of  the  remedy  on  the  other.  He  shows  anew  that  salvation 
is  the  work  of  Christ,  complete  in  him,  and  in  no  way  to  be 
earned,  but  simply  to  be  received  in  its  objective  perfection. 
The  validity  of  the  argument  depends  on  the  immutable  rela- 
tions connecting  men  with  the  two  sources,  Adam  and  Christ, 
and  this  vital  connection  gives  the  argument  its  comprehensive 
character.  The  world's  history  is  laid  bare  at  its  root,  and  the 
key  to  that  history  is  placed  in  our  hands. 

"  By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world."  Paul  does  not 
even  by  implication  say  whether  sin  had  an  existence  before 
Adam's  fall  or  not.  He  says  "sin,"  not  "sins."  He  is  look- 
ing not  at  the  concrete  acts  of  sin,  not  at  the  habit.  Adam 
did  not  bring  sin  into  the  world  by  setting  a  bad  example ;  his 
one  act  wrought  a  constitutional  change  of  unhohness  within 
his  heart.  That  act  resulted  in  an  innate  corrupting  principle 
that  transmitted  itself  just  as  his  natural  features  did.  Because 
he  had  two  feet  rather  than  four,  so  all  his  descendants  are 
bipedal;  and  as  he  became  a  sinner,  so  is  each  one  of  the 
race  sprung  from  him.  Thus  it  entered  into  the  "  world  "  of 
men.  The  material  creation  was  affected  on  account  of 
Adam's  sin  (Gen.  iii.  17),  but  not  by  direct  connection,  and 


(V.  12)  JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  97 

Paul  does  not  contemplate  it  in  the  word  "  world."  He  means 
the  world  of  mankind. 

"  And  death  by  sin."  This  is  the  direct  outcome  and  un- 
failing fruit  of  that  transmissive  poison  which  entered  Adam's 
heart.  It  is  primarily  physical  death,  as  is  plain  from  verse  14 
below,  but  physical  death  as  an  exponent  and  sign  of  that 
other  deeper  death  of  the  soul,  spiritual  death.  The  two  stand 
in  together,  and  therefore  Paul  does  not  sharply  distinguish 
them.     (See  2  Tim.  i.  10.) 

"For  that  all  have  sinned."  A  better  translation  is  "be- 
cause all  sinned."  Death  is  consequent  on  sin,  and  so  death 
passed  on  all  men  because  all  men  sin  in  Adam.  "This  is 
proved  by  the  succeeding  explanatory  context,  verses  15-19, 
in  which  it  is  reiterated  five  times  in  succession  that  one  and 
ofily  one  sin  is  the  cause  of  the  death  that  befalls  all  men  " 
(Shedd,  "  Commentary,"  hi  loc). 

This  verse,  and  especially  this  short  concluding  sentence, 
has  provoked  a  world  of  controversy.  The  debate  arises  not 
so  much  from  facts  which  must  have  been  plain  to  Paul's 
Roman  readers,  but  from  the  multitude  of  questions  which  the 
facts  suggest.  Was  Adam  not  created  mortal?  What  is  the 
nature  of  his  relation  to  posterity?  Do  men  participate  in  the 
guilt  of  his  sin?  Is  its  punishment  imputed  to  them?  Is 
natural  depravity  transmitted  from  him  to  the  race,  and  is  it 
culpable?  There  is  no  explicit  answer  to  these  questions 
either  here  or  anywhere  else  in  the  Bible.  The  first  question 
is  not  practical ;  as  to  the  second  we  have  already  indicated  our 
view — the  connection  is  natural,  real.  If  Levi  could  pay  tithes 
when  the  tribe  was  yet  unborn  in  the  loins  of  Abraham  (Heb. 
vii.  9,  10),  so  the  unborn  race  could  sin  in  the  loins  of  Adam. 
To  the  remaining  questions  the  answer  must  be  in  the  af- 
firmative, both  for  the  sake  of  the  parallel  with  Christ  and  that 
Paul's  words  may  be  left  to  stand  in  their  naked  plainness. 

But  now  springs  up  the  question   of  the  divine  justice. 


9g  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS      (V.  13,  14) 

Should  millions  suffer  for  the  sin  of  one?  Yes,  if  millions  may 
be  saved  by  the  righteousness  of  one.  But,  furthermore,  if 
the  elemental  facts  are  as  above  it  is  presumptuous  to  raise 
the  question  of  justice.  What  God  does  is  the  ultimate  stan- 
dard of  right. 

\Zy  J4«  These  two  verses,  the  last  clause  excepted,  are  in- 
tended to  show  that  men  die  not  for  their  own  personal  sin, 
but  because  of  Adam's.  It  is  a  fact  that  sin  was  in  the  world 
all  along  until  the  time  of  the  giving  of  the  law  at  Sinai.  It 
had  an  actual,  practical  existence ;  but  this  personal,  practical 
sin  is  not  "imputed,"  not  set  down  to  the  account  of  these 
sinners,  and  the  reason  for  this  non-imputation  is,  there  was 
"no  law" — no  written  or  spoken  law  which  they  by  personal 
act  could  break.  They  sinned  without  law,  but  they  could 
not  be  adjudged  worthy  of  the  penalty  of  that  sin  before  the 
law  was  promulgated.  The  general  principle  is,  sin  not  im- 
puted where  there  is  no  law.  It  comes  to  this:  no  written 
law,  no  sin,  and  no  sin,  no  death.  But  now  the  fact  is  that 
death  reigned,  had  sovereign,  undisputed  sway,  during  all  the 
no-law  period  from  Adam  to  Moses.  In  all  this  long  period 
death  came  to  those  who  had  "  not  sinned  after  the  similitude 
of  Adam's  transgression  " ;  that  is,  they  had  not  broken  any 
formal  command.  Many  more  irresponsible  babes  died  in  the 
flood  than  men.  If,  then,  death  is  the  penalty  of  some  law 
broken,  and  these  had  none,  it  follows  they  broke  that  first 
law :  they  sinned  in  Adam.  And  the  statement  "  for  that  all 
have  sinned  "  means  this.  The  unwritten  law  noticed  in  ii.  14 
cannot  be  the  cause  of  death,  for  babes  have  not  even  that. 
All  sinned  when  Adam  violated  the  word  of  God. 

"  Who  [Adam]  is  the  figure  [type]  of  him  that  was  to  come." 
Adam  is  a  figure  of  Christ  in  just  this  respect :  that  as  his  one 
sin  brought  death  to  all,  even  when  there  was  no  personal  sin, 
so  Christ's  one  act  of  obedience  brings  unfailing  righteousness 
to  those  who  are  in  him,  even  when  they  have  no  personal 


(V.  15)  JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  99 

righteousness.  Hence  the  argument  of  verses  13  and  14  to 
show  that  death  must  be  traced  to  Adam's  sole  act  and  not  to 
the  sin  of  his  posterity— one  side  of  the  parallel. 

J5*  "  But  not  as  the  offense  [the  fall  of  Adam],  so  also  is 
the  free  gift  [in  Christ]."  This  verse  and  the  next  two  show 
in  what  points  the  type  falls  short  of  the  antitype.  The  type 
is  complete  in  the  outline,  but  not  in  some  details.  This  verse 
gives  the  difference  in  intensity  between  the  destructive  and 
the  recovering  power. 

"  For  if  through  the  offense  of  [the]  one  [the]  many  be 
dead,"  or  "  the  many  died,"  as  in  the  Revised  Version.  The 
King  James,  in  its  failure  to  give  the  articles,  does  not  bring 
out  the  sharp  contrast  between  Adam  and  the  race.  The  *'  if  " 
does  not  express  any  doubt ;  it  is  argumentative.  The  "  for  " 
brings  in  what  Paul  has  to  say  on  the  inequality  between  the 
offense  and  the  free  gift.  Note  that  in  this  sentence,  "  Through 
the  offense  of  the  one  the  many  "  died,  he  asserts  that  Adam's 
sin  is  the  sole  cause  of  death  among  men.  This  unsupported 
statement  shows  how  Paul  must  be  understood  in  verses  12- 
14.     It  needs  no  proof  here,  for  that  has  preceded  it. 

Over  against  this  poisonous  fountain  in  Adam — this  fall 
which  brought  death  to  all — stands  the  healing  "  grace  "  of 
God  and  the  "  gift "  of  justification.  These  two,  the  grace 
and  the  gift,  are  found  "  by  grace,  which  is  by  [the]  one  man, 
Jesus  Christ."  The  Revised  Version  is  preferable  here :  "  Much 
more  did  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  gift  by  the  grace  of  the 
one  man,  Jesus  Christ,  abound  unto  the  many."  Over  against 
the  fall  of  the  one  is  the  grace  of  the  one,  Jesus  Christ.  Over 
against  the  effect  of  the  fall,  the  death  of  the  many,  is  the 
effect  of  the  grace  of  the  one  man,  Jesus  Christ,  viz.,  that  the 
grace  of  God  and  the  gift  have  "  abounded  unto  [the]  many." 
The  complex  language  of  the  verse  becomes  plain  when  it  is 
observed  that  it  sets  forth  two  opposing  sources  in  the  two 
men,  followed  by  two  opposite  results.     This  may  be  seen  in 


100  THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS        (V.  i6) 

transposing  the  sentence :  If  the  many  died  by  the  trespass  of 
the  one,  much  more  the  grace  of  God  and  the  gift  abounded 
to  the  many  by  the  grace  of  the  one  man,  Jesus  Christ.  The 
"much  more"  is  logical— much  more  certain  is  it— and  not 
quantitative,  for  the  grace  in  its  extent  is  here  considered  to 
be  just  as  wide  and  no  wider  than  the  death.  The  many  were 
embraced  by  both. 

Meyer  misses  the  whole  point  in  saying  that  the  grace  in  the 
one  man,  Jesus  Christ,  is  that  in  which  "he  found  himself 
moved  "  to  accomplish  the  redemption ;  for  then  there  would 
be  in  the  verse  two  sources  of  grace,  God  and  Christ,  and  the 
parallel  with  Adam  would  be  gone.  Our  guide  here  must 
be  iii.  24.  Christ  mediates  the  grace  of  God;  the  grace  of 
God  that  "  abounded  unto  the  many "  is  the  very  same 
grace  that  was  "by  one  man,  Jesus  Christ."  Grace  did  not 
abound  by  grace,  but  grace  abounded  in  grace,  the  grace  of 
God  in  the  grace  of  Christ.  "  God  was  in  Christ,  reconciling 
the  world  unto  himself"  (2  Cor.  v.  19).  And  now  the  argu- 
ment can  be  restated:  If  man,  a  creature,  can  do  so  much 
against  the  race  by  his  fall,  what  cannot  God  do  for  the  race 
by  his  grace  in  Jesus  Christ?  It  is  well-nigh  a  double  antith- 
esis :  God  in  Christ  over  against  man,  and  divine  grace  over 
against  a  fall. 

The  whole  verse  is  objective;  the  first  member,  "by  the 
offense  of  the  one  the  many  died,"  surely  is.  The  question 
is  not  one  about  salvation,  but  about  the  power  to  effect  it ; 
and  this  power  resides  in  Christ  for  all  men,  or  "  unto  the 
many." 

J6»  "And  not  as  it  was  by  one  that  sinned  [Adam],  so  is 
the  gift  [in  Christ]."  Or,  more  exactly,  "  Not  as  through  one 
that  sinned  is  the  gift."  The  fifteenth  verse  shows  the  differ- 
ence in  the  intensity  of  the  two  opposing  powers ;  this  shows 
a  difference  in  extension,  but  not  in  the  extension  among  men, 
for  each  force,  the  force  for  death  and  the  force  for  life,  reaches 


(V.  17)  JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  101 

to  all  men.  In  the  last  verse  the  inference  was  from  the  con- 
trasted sources.  In  this  it  is  seen  in  a  contrasted  extension, 
not  to  men,  but  to  their  needs. 

"The  judgment,  .  .  .  the  free  gift."  God's  judgment,  his 
judicial  sentence  to  the  condemnation  of  death,  proceeded 
from  "  one  "  sin.  Now  that  one  sin  measures  the  judgment 
in  its  breadth.  There  was  one  sin  and  its  befitting  judgment 
to  match  it ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the  free  gift  for  justifica- 
tion, the  free  gift  that  issues  in  justification  and  saves,  pro- 
ceeded from  "  many  offenses  " ;  for  every  man  is  not  only  in- 
volved with  Adam  in  sin,  but  he  has  committed  innumerable 
offenses  himself.  To  be  saved  there  must  be  a  free  gift  that 
will  cover  all  these.  The  extent  of  the  destructive  power  does 
not  go  beyond  the  one  sin  of  Adam ;  the  extent  of  the  re- 
covering power  is  as  wide  as  the  countless  sins  of  any  heart. 
The  two  forces,  then,  are  measured  by  the  difference  in  the 
number  of  sins  to  which  each  looks :  the  judgment  to  one  sin, 
the  free  gift  to  many.  How  vastly  more  extensive,  then,  is  the 
free  gift!  To  take  the  two  verses  together,  the  contrasts  are 
a  shallow,  narrow  stream,  and  a  deep,  broad  stream — the  shal- 
low stream  from  Adam  no  wider  than  his  one  sin,  the  deep 
stream  from  Christ  as  broad  as  the  sum  of  all  sins  of  men. 
And  if  the  little  stream  sweeps  the  soul  away  to  death,  how 
surely  the  great  volume  of  the  other  will  carry  one  to  the 
haven  of  hf e ! 

t7»  "For  if  by  one  man's  offense  death  reigned  by  one." 
It  is  declared  again  that  Adam's  sin  is  the  source  of  death 
among  men,  as  was  proved  in  verses  12-14.  The  verse  be- 
fore us  bears  on  just  one  word  in  the  preceding  one,  the  word 
"  justification,"  and  is  in  the  nature  of  a  conclusion.  That  it 
begins  with  "  for  "  may  seem  to  lie  against  the  idea  of  a  con- 
clusion; the  word  to  be  expected  was  "therefore"  or  "then." 
But  "for"  is  appropriate  too,  for  it  can  be  used  to  reas- 
sert  what    has   just   been   said,  as   in   xv.    27,   where   it   is 


102  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (V.  i8) 

translated  in  the  Revised  Version  "yea"  and  in  the  King 
James  "  verily."  The  seventeenth  verse  serves  to  expand  the 
word  "justification"  in  the  previous  one,  or  to  give  the  con- 
tents of  that  word.  It  brings  in  nothing  new,  only  puts  what 
we  had  before  in  new  form.  The  first,  the  conditional  clause 
of  the  verse,  is  given  here  for  the  third  time ;  and  the  con- 
cluding part  has  been  implied  twice  before  in  verses  15  and 
16.  These  two  showed  the  superiority  of  the  saving  energy 
in  Christ.  It  remains  now  to  say  that  those  who  "  receive  " 
this  energy,  this  "  abundance  of  grace,"  will  surely  be  saved, 
or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  "  reign  in  life  by  one,  Jesus  Christ." 
"  Received  "  does  not  mean  accepted,  but  made  recipients  of, 
as  in  i.  5  ;  iv.  II  ;  v.  II  ;  viii.  15.  The  parallel  between  death 
and  life  is  not  preserved.  Paul  says  death  reigned ;  he  does 
not  follow  this  with  the  words  "  hf e  reigned " ;  instead, 
"they  .  .  .  reigned  in  hfe."  The  latter  is  more  expressive. 
The  justified  are  kings  in  life. 

Paul's  argument  has  now  reached  its  point :  If  the  relation 
to  Adam  brought  death,  the  relation  to  Christ  formed  in  being 
made  a  recipient  of  the  superabundant  grace  in  him  will  more 
surely  issue  in  life.  If  death  in  Adam  is  certain,  life  in  Christ 
is,  if  possible,  more  so. 

J8»  The  first  word  of  this  verse,  "therefore,"  in  the  King 
James  version  is  too  strong.  The  conclusion  is  already  given  in 
verse  1 7,  and  now  the  writer  steps  back  to  take  up  anew  and  to 
finish  the  broken  parallel  begun,  but  dropped  at  verse  12.  To 
have  completedit  there  would  have  asserted  an  exactness  which 
is  seen  now  to  exist  only  in  the  vital  point,  but  not  in  the  details. 
The  statue  in  Christ  has  been  shown  to  be  much  larger  than 
the  model  in  Adam.  The  verse  should  begin  with  the  words 
"so  then,"  which  look  back  over  everything  that  has  been 
said  from  the  twelfth  verse  on  ;  and  it  should  be  rendered  neither 
as  the  King  James  version  nor  as  the  Revision  presents  it,  but, 
"  So  then,  as  through  one  trespass  it  [the  trespass]  came  to  all 


(V.  19)  JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  103 

men  to  condemnation,  so  also  through  one  righteous  act  it  [the 
righteous  act]  came  to  all  men  to  justification  of  hfe." 

The  first  "  all "  is  as  broad  as  the  race  and  includes  every- 
one of  mankind,  even  the  babes.  To  deny  for  infants  the 
condemnation  of  Adam's  sin,  and  to  say  that  penalty  is  im- 
possible without  personal  transgression,  is  to  deny  too  much. 
It  is  to  deny  salvation  to  the  millions  who  die  in  infancy ;  for 
if  they  have  no  sin,  how  can  they  ever  join  in  the  salvation 
song,  "  Unto  him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins 
in  his  own  blood"?    (Rev.  i.  5.) 

The  second  "  all,"  to  whom  Christ's  one  righteous  act  comes 
just  as  if  it  had  been  theirs,  is  Hmited  by  the  words  in  the  preced- 
ing verse,  "they  which  receive  [the]  abundance  of  [the]  grace." 
The  first  "  all  "  indicates  a  natural  and  necessary  relation  with 
Adam ;  the  second  "all"  indicates  not  a  natural,  but  a  spiritual 
and  mystical  relation  with  Christ  instituted  by  the  will  of  God. 
The  first  "  all "  refers  to  people  of  one  character,  the  second  to 
people  of  a  wholly  different  character,  and  it  is  not  universal. 

J9*  "  Disobedience,  .  .  .  obedience."  This  verse  repeats 
in  corroboration  the  statements  of  the  last.  The  two  verses 
are  not  primarily  argumentative,  but  assertive  of  conclusions 
reached  before.  The  paragraph  as  a  whole  is  not  argumentative, 
unless  we  except  verses  12-14.  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that 
from  the  beginning  of  the  chapter  Paul's  topic  is  that  justifi- 
cation by  faith  secures  the  final  salvation  of  him  who  has  it. 
This  third  point  in  proof  does  not  rest  on  any  fine-drawn 
argument,  but  on  an  exposition  of  facts.  It  is  a  fact  that 
death  comes  through  Adam.  It  is  equally  a  fact  that  those 
who  are  in  the  "  last  Adam  "  are  saved.  Paul  has  not  one 
word  in  attestation  of  the  parallel ;  he  declares  it. 

The  word  "  all  "  in  the  last  verse  is  changed  to  "  the  many," 
as  more  suitable  to  the  word  "  one."  "  For  [just]  as  by  the  one 
man's  disobedience  the  many  [the  rest,  all]  were  made  [rather 
"  were  set  down  in  the  class  of  "]  sinners,  so  [also]  by  the  obe- 


104  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMAICS     (V.  20,  21) 

dience  of  the  one  [Christ]  the  many  [who  are  in  him]  shall  be 
made  [shall  be  set  down  in  the  class  of  the]  righteous."  The 
word  "  made "  is  not  causative,  but  declarative.  Those  in 
Adam  were  justly  declared  sinners,  because  thereby  they  were 
naturally  such  (Eph.  ii.  3).  Those  in  Christ  are  declared 
righteous  graciously,  because  they  are  so  in  him.  The  future, 
"  shall  be  made,"  looks  back  to  the  other  future  in  the  seven- 
teenth verse,  "  shall  reign,"  that  explains  it.  The  "  obedience  " 
does  not  refer  to  the  whole  sinless  history  of  Christ,  but  to  that 
culminating  act  on  the  cross  in  which  he  "became  obedient 
unto  death  "  (Phil.  ii.  8).  The  logic  of  this  section  as  well  as 
the  uniform  sentiment  of  the  New  Testament  requires  this 
(Eph.  ii.  13,  16;  Heb.  x.  12-14). 

20,  2\*  These  two  verses  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  argu- 
ment now  completed  for  the  permanency  of  justification,  ex- 
cept as  they  remove  an  objection  sure  to  occur  to  the  Jew. 
Paul  has  traced  the  origin  of  sin  and  of  grace,  or  of  death  and 
of  life,  to  two  primal  and  ultimate  sources,  Adam  and  Christ. 
But  the  Mosaic  law  is  a  fact,  and  that  law  deals  with  death 
and  life  too.  This  point  cannot  be  overlooked,  and  Paul  now 
in  few  words  shows  the  place  which  the  law  holds.  Sin  and 
death  do  have  their  origin  in  Adam,  but  long  after  his  day  the 
law  was  imposed  to  show  sin's  character.  The  law  entered, 
or  came  in  alongside,  in  order  that  "  the  offense  [the  fall]  might 
abound."  The  law  excited  self-will  and  opposition,  and  the 
Jews'  transgressions  of  it  or  falls  before  it  showed  them  to  be 
just  what  Adam  was  and  worse.  It  did  not  solicit  sin  ;  it  elic- 
ited. It  was  not  intended  gradually  to  remove  sin,  but  to 
prepare  the  way  for  its  removal  in  Christ. 

Since  the  offense  is  a  proof  of  sin,  Paul  at  once  drops  back 
to  this  word  to  say,  "  Where  sin  abounded  [a  fact  proved  by 
the  "offense"  under  law],  grace  [in  Christ]  did  much  more 
abound."  This  abundance  of  grace  is  the  thing  shown  above, 
especially  in  verses  15-17. 


(V.  20,  21)  JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  105 

The  twenty-first  verse  draws  the  parallel  once  more,  and 
finally,  between  Adam  and  Christ.  Grace  superabounded, 
"that  [in  order  that]  as  sin  hath  reigned  in  [the  sphere  of]  death 
[and  by  death— universal  death,  showing  sin's  universal  sway], 
even  so  might  grace  [the  grace  that  far  exceeds  sin  in  its  power] 
reign  through  [by  means  of]  righteousness  [the  righteousness 
in  Christ]  unto  eternal  life."  This  was  the  point  to  be  shown  : 
that  this  righteousness  would  not  fail  him  who  had  it,  but 
that  it  was  forever.  The  matter  concludes  with  the  solemn 
words  that  this  blessed,  everlasting  reign  of  righteousness  is 
"  by  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 


CHAPTER   VI 

JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH   DOES  NOT   FAVOR  A  SINFUL  COURSE 
OF   LIFE 

The  chapter  has  two  main  divisions :  ( i )  continuance  in  sin 
is  impossible  to  the  justified  man  (verses  1-14),  because  he 
died  to  sin  and  is  ahve  with  the  Hfe  of  Christ;  and  (2)  even 
sinning  is  unwarranted  in  justification  of  Hfe,  because  it  leads 
to  enslavement  to  sin  and  to  its  appropriate  wages,  death 
(verses  15-23). 

t^  "Shall  we  continue  in  sin,  that  grace  may  abound?" 
The  question  comes  logically  from  the  last  two  verses  in  the 
preceding  chapter,  where  Paul  virtually  says,  the  more  sin,  the 
more  grace.  But  it  looks  back  also  necessarily  over  the  whole 
discussion  of  justification.  That  this  question,  involving  such 
an  answer  as  that  which  follows,  should  emerge  at  all  shows 
clearly  Paul's  idea  of  justification.  If  the  latter  signifies  "  to 
make  good,"  the  question  would  be  impossible.  If  justification 
means  "to  declare  good,"  the  question  is  pertinent.  If  the  sin- 
ner is  justified  on  the  ground  of  any  personal  merit,  for  any 
good  that  he  is  doing  with  a  view  to  justification,  the  question 
is  inexplicable.  But  if  God  by  his  free  grace  in  Christ  Jesus 
justifies  "  the  ungodly  "  (iv.  5),  this  question  must  come  to  the 
front  and  press  earnestly  for  an  answer. 

And  this  answer  is  found  wholly  in  the  facts  that  go  to  make 
the  gospel  story.     It  is  not  found  in  the  obligation  of  the  law 

106 


(VI.  2)  DOES  FAITH  PROMOTE   SIN?  107 

that  says  "  Thou  shalt  not " ;  it  is  not  found  in  the  gratitude 
which  the  justified  man  should  feel  toward  him  who  died  for 
him ;  it  is  not  found  in  good  resolutions,  in  prayer,  and  in 
watchfulness ;  it  is  found  in  Christ. 

2»  "  God  forbid.  How  shall  we,  that  are  dead  to  sin,  live  any 
longer  therein?  "  To  live  in  sin  is  to  be  under  its  sway  (verses 
1-14)  and  to  practise  it  (verses  15-23).  Paul  with  vigorous 
language  repels  the  thought  that  a  justified  man  can  remain  in 
this  enslaving  service.  The  reason  is  that  the  justified  are  also 
dead  to  sin.  This  death  belongs  to  their  redemption,  on  the 
ground  of  which  they  were  justified.  "  Dead  to  sin  "  is  far 
from  meaning  the  death  of  sin  as  a  power  or  principle  in  the 
hea.rt.  (See  under  viii.  11.)  In  the  history  of  the  church 
many  who  have  embraced  this  view  have  been  driven  from  it 
by  a  sad  experience,  and  those  who  have  not  been  so  driven 
have  lived  a  life  of  self-deception.  "  Dead  to  sin  "  does  not 
mean  a  resolution  to  imitate  Christ ;  it  is  more  than  an  act  of 
will;  it  is  death  in  and  with  Christ  in  the  actual  fact  of  his 
death.  Christ's  death  was  the  believer's  death  also  (2  Cor.  v. 
14 ;  I  Pet.  ii.  24).  Paul  has  virtually  said  this  in  the  verses 
just  above  (v.  18,  19).  What  the  one  did  all  did.  He  died 
not  only  for  sins  (i  Cor.  xv.  3),  but  for  sinners.  He  atoned 
not  only  for  the  acts,  but  for  the  actor.  It  is  the  considera- 
tion of  the  latter  fact  only  that  occupies  this  chapter— "We, 
that  are  dead,"  having  died  when  he  did.  The  blood  shed  at 
the  cross  washes  the  sinner  as  well  as  his  sins.  "  If  I  wash 
thee  not "  (John  xiii.  8). 

To  be  saved  is  to  be  saved  from  sin  first  of  all.  After  Paul 
has  labored  through  five  chapters  to  show  that  this  salvation 
is  a  gratuitous  gift  to  faith  in  Christ,  how  can  he  now  refer  it 
to  something  else,  a  subjective  death  in  the  heart  of  the  sin- 
ner? He  is  not  so  illogical,  but  some  of  his  interpreters  are. 
When  the  apostle  is  asked  whether  his  doctrine  that  grace 
covers  every  sin,  the  more  sin,  the  more  grace,— "Let  us  do 


108  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (VI.  3) 

evil,  that  good  may  come  "  (iii.  8),— is  not  promotive  of  sin, 
his  answer  is  just  simply  a  further  explication  of  grace,  an 
opening  up  of  a  wider  view  of  the  work  of  the  cross.  The 
power  against  continuance  in  sin  is  faith  in  the  cross. 

Sin's  power,  its  mastery  over  the  soul,  comes  from  its  pres- 
ence. The  enhghtened  man  soon  sees  that  his  guilt  lies  not 
so  much  in  what  he  has  done  as  in  what  he  is.  It  is  not  his 
acts,  it  is  himself,  that  is  an  offense  against  God.  Sin  dwells 
within  him,  tainting  every  fiber  of  his  soul.  He  cannot  es- 
cape it  by  anything  within  his  own  power  any  more  than  he 
can  change  the  color  of  his  eyes.  It  is  ever  present  and  is 
thereby  master.  But  why  seek  to  escape  it?  why  not  continue 
in  it  if  grace  covers  it?  "How  shall  we,  that  are  dead  to 
sin,  live  any  longer  therein?  "  How  can  one  on  whom  the 
sun  has  risen  walk  now  in  the  dark?  The  believer  died  in 
Christ's  death.  The  believer  is  dead,  and  that  death  answers 
for  the  guilt  of  what  he  is.  Faith  takes  Christ  for  sinfulness 
as  well  as  for  sins ;  and  indwelling  sin  has  lost  its  power  to 
vex  the  conscience  and  to  cut  off  the  light  from  God's  coun- 
tenance the  moment  that  faith  says,  "  He  died  for  what  I  am 
as  well  as  for  what  I  did."  Sin  loses  its  power,  because  sin  is 
gone  from  the  heart  by  the  death  of  Christ,  in  which  the  sin- 
ner dies. 

Note  three  things :  First,  the  question  so  far  is  not  about 
continuing  to  sin,  but  about  continuance  in  sin,  in  its  power. 
Secondly,  the  only  change  that  Paul  contemplates  in  the  jus- 
tified man  up  to  this  point  is  a  change  in  his  attitude  toward 
Christ ;  from  being  a  non-beHever  he  has  become  a  believer. 
Thirdly,  this  first  verse  makes  but  the  first  step  in  answering 
the  question,  "Shall  we  continue  in  sin?  " 

$♦  The  question  could  not  be  asked  if  the  Romans  bethought 
themselves  of  what  they  assumed  in  their  baptism.  They  were 
dead,  as  the  verse  above  declares,  for  they  were  baptized  into 
Christ's  death.     This  third  verse,  then,  is  in  the  way  of  expli- 


(VI.  3)  DOES  FAITH  PROMOTE   SIN?  109 

cation  that  the  Romans  died  to  sin,  the  hour  of  that  death 
being  the  time  when  they  entered  the  waters  of  baptism.  The 
meaning  of  their  baptism  was  death. 

But  how  did  they  die  by  means  of  baptism?  Paul  answers, 
to  quote  the  Revised  Version :  "  Or  are  ye  ignorant  that  all 
we  who  were  baptized  into  Christ  Jesus  were  baptized  into  his 
death?  "  They  knew,  of  course,  that  they  were  baptized  into 
Christ ;  but  Paul  insists  on  the  one  point  that  that  baptism  in- 
volved among  other  things  oneness  with  him  in  his  death  to 
sin.  By  the  ordinance  or  in  the  ordina'hce  they  declared  their 
acceptance  of  him  as  Saviour  and  so  came  "  into  "  him.  The 
nature  of  the  union  is  not  disclosed,  but  it  is  real.  It  is  not 
effected  by  the  baptism,  but  in  it.  In  the  baptism  the  believer 
virtually  says,  "  I  make  Christ's  death  to  sin  my  death  to  sin." 
It  is  the  symbohc  response  of  the  heart  to  the  teaching  of  the 
gospel  that  Christ's  death  is  also  the  believer's. 

But  must  it  not  be  said  now  that  Paul  has  abandoned  his 
theme,  salvation  by  faith,  in  substituting  the  word  "  baptism  "? 
Why  did  he  not  say,  "All  we  who  believed  into  Christ,"  a 
common  phrase  in  the  New  Testament  (x.  14;  Gal.  ii.  16), 
"beheved  into  his  death"?  The  difficulty  arises  from  the 
modern  wrong  conception  of  the  New  Testament  meaning 
of  the  word  "baptism,"  that  it  is  a  mere  rite,  an  act  to  be 
done,  at  the  best,  because  one  beheves  in  Christ.  The  New 
Testament  writers  never  separate  it  from  the  faith  which  it 
embodies  and  expresses.  It  is  the  fixed  sign  for  faith,  just  as 
any  appropriate  order  of  letters  in  a  word  is  the  sign  of  an  idea. 
The  sign  stands  for  the  thing  and  is  constantly  used  for  the 
thing.  Hence  Paul  can  say  that  Christ  was  "put  on"  in 
baptism  (Gal.  iii.  27),  and  Peter  does  not  hesitate  to  declare 
that  "baptism  doth  also  now  save  us"  (i  Pet.  iii.  21).  It  is 
referred  to  as  the  "  laver  of  regeneration  "  (Tit.  iii.  5),  and  said 
to  "  wash  away  sins  "  (Acts  xxii.  1 6).  To  refuse  to  be  baptized 
is  to  reject  God,  and  the  opposite  is  to  accept  him  (Luke  vii. 


110  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (VI.  4) 

29,  30).  Every  one  of  these  passages— and  there  are  more 
Hke  them— would  teach  salvation  by  a  rite,  salvation  by 
water,  but  that  the  word  for  baptism  is  used  as  a  symbol  of 
faith.  Faith  so  far  is  not  one  thing  and  baptism  another ;  they 
are  the  same  thing.  The  faith  that  accepted  Christ  in  Paul's 
day  was  the  faith  that  showed  its  acceptance  in  baptism.  The 
water  without  the  preceding  faith  was  nothing.  The  faith 
without  the  water  could  not  be  allowed.  Believers  were  bap- 
tized into  Christ  or  they  were  not  considered  to  be  in  him. 

The  word  being  so  used,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  Paul  has  not 
departed  from  the  gem  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith ;  and 
by  employing  it  he  has  gained  definiteness  of  statement. 
Faith  is  a  wide  term  and  shows  itself  in  many  ways,  each  ex- 
hibition being  exactly  appropriate  to  the  way  in  which  faith  is 
then  exercised.  The  exhibition  is  an  exponent  of  the  faith. 
In  faith  of  a  coming  flood,  Noah  appropriately  built  an  ark. 
In  faith  that  Israel  would  one  day  leave  Egypt,  Joseph  gave 
commandment  concerning  his  bones,  that  they  be  not  left  be- 
hind. In  faith  that  one  dies  with  Jesus,  he  is  buried  with  him 
in  baptism,  the  faith  taking  this  fit  form.  The  Romans  had 
a  broad  faith  that  ran  out  in  many  hues,  and  it  was  known  far 
and  wide  (i.  8).  Just  one  of  these  Hues  led  to  salvation— the 
one  that  found  its  appropriate  exhibition  in  baptism.  When 
Paul  said  they  were  baptized  into  Christ,  they  knew  instantly 
to  what  hour  (see  on  xvi.  7)  and  to  what  hne  of  their  multi- 
form faith  he  referred— the  faith  that  saw  the  man  and  not 
merely  his  sins  on  the  cross  and  in  the  tomb,  so  that  to  show 
itself  appropriately  the  whole  man  must  be  buried  with  Christ 
in  baptism.  The  act  of  baptism  is  an  exponent,  first  of  all, 
not  of  the  remission  of  sins,  but  of  the  death  of  the  believer  in 
Christ,  so  that  his  sinfulness  is  atoned  for.  He  himself  has 
died  to  sin. 

4.  The  second  verse  declares  the  fact  of  the  believer's  death 
in  Christ,  a  fact  explained  in  the  third.     The  two  have  just 


(VI.  5)  DOES  FAITH  PROMOTE   SIN?  Ill 

the  one  thought— death.  This  fourth  verse  draws  the  natural 
conclusion :  therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  means  of 
the  baptism  into  death.  He  does  not  say  into  "  his  "  death 
this  time,  because  he  is  not  now  emphasizing  the  union  with 
Christ  brought  about  in  the  ordinance,  but  the  condition  in 
which  it  places  the  baptized  man.  He  is  dead.  And  this 
favors  the  view  that  the  phrase  "  into  death  "  is  to  be  joined 
with  "baptism."  We  are  buried  with  him  by  means  of  an 
into-death  baptism.  To  connect  it  with  the  verb  "  buried  " 
gives  an  unnatural  figure,  buried  into  death,  but  one  that  is 
supported  by  some.  The  mention  of  the  burial  prepares  the 
way  for  the  next  step,  the  second  in  the  question  of  continu- 
ance in  sin.  It  is  only  touched  and  then  dropped  to  go  on 
with  the  idea  of  death  until  the  end  of  the  seventh  verse. 

We  were  buried  with  him  in  order  that,  just  as  the  Father 
raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead  by  means  of  that  "  glory  "  which 
is  the  sum  of  the  gracious  excellence  of  his  character,  so  we 
also  should  walk  in  the  newness  of  the  principle  of  life.  The 
"  should  "  does  not  express  obligation,  but  the  Father's  intent 
in  the  raising  of  the  Saviour  on  our  behalf.  The  mention  of 
the  glory  in  connection  with  Christ's  resurrection  suggests  that 
the  same  glory  will  be  exhibited  in  the  walk  springing  from  the 
new  hfe-principle. 

5.  This  verse  tells  why  there  may  be  a  new  walk  in  point- 
ing out  the  power  of  that  walk.  The  reason  is  that,  as  we  are 
one  with  him  in  his  death,  so  are  we  also  in  his  resurrection, 
being  endowed  in  the  latter  with  the  same  life  which  he  re- 
ceived in  rising  from  the  tomb.  The  reference  is  not  to  our 
future  bodily  resurrection.  "  For  if  "  (or  "  as  "),  a  graft  in  a 
tree  (John  xv.),  "we  became  [not  "planted,"  but]  grown  to- 
gether [with  him]  in  the  likeness  of  his  death  [viz.,  our  baptism], 
so  shall  we  be  also  still  grown  together  [with  him]  in  the  like- 
ness of  his  resurrection  [viz.,  our  emergence  from  the  watery 
grave]."     To  state  this  idea  of  union  Paul  has  not  abandoned 


112  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS        (VI.  6,  7) 

his  figure  of  baptism.  Grafting,  to  be  sure,  is  not  done  in 
water,  but  the  union  in  the  baptism  is  as  vital  as  that  between 
the  graft  and  the  tree.  It  must  be  noted  that  none  can  share 
in  Christ's  resurrection  Hfe  except  by  first  dying.  We  are 
buried  in  order  to  be  raised  (John  xii.  24). 

Now  for  the  first  time  Paul  has  clearly  asserted  union  with 
Christ.  For  the  thought  is,  if  we  went  into  the  baptism  in 
union,  why  should  we  not  come  out  in  union?  The  oneness 
in  the  immersion  is  proof  of  the  oneness  in  the  emersion. 

6«  He  changes  his  figure,  but  holds  in  both  the  same  point 
of  view— the  death  of  Christ.  The  connection  is  causal;  we 
may  say  that  we  are  grown  together  in  the  likeness  of  his 
resurrection  because  of  our  "knowing  this,"  viz.,  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  cross.  It  must  not  be  said  here,  with  Shedd,  that 
"  St.  Paul  adduces  the  personal  experience  of  the  believer  in 
proof."  Did  any  man  ever  experience  that  he  died  with  Christ  ? 
The  word  does  mean  an  experimental  knowledge,  but  in  this 
case,  as  in  many  others,  it  is  the  experience  of  faith  (Gal.  iii. 
7  ;  2  Tim.  iii.  i)  and  not  of  fact.  It  is  by  faith  we  know  that 
"  our  old  man,"  our  former  self  before  our  acceptance  of  Christ, 
was  (not  "is")  crucified  with  him,  in  order  that  our  body, 
the  possession  and  slave  of  sin,  might  be  (not  "destroyed," 
but)  annulled  by  dying  with  Christ  to  sin.  By  "body"  is 
meant  nearly  the  same  as  "  old  man."  The  latter  is  the  man 
in  his  relations  to  Hfe  and  to  his  own  history.  The  former  is 
the  means  of  these.  The  intent  of  the  annuUing  of  this  body 
by  the  cross  was  that  we  might  no  more  do  bond-service  to 
sin,  or,  as  the  Revised  Version,  "  that  so  we  should  no  longer 
be  in  bondage  to  sin." 

7^  That  we  are  no  longer  debtors  to  sin,  to  render  it  any 
kind  of  service,  is  proved  by  the  accepted  maxim  in  human 
penalties  that  he  who  died  (not  "is  dead")  thereby  stands 
acquitted  (not  "is  freed")  from  sin.  Death  cancels  every- 
thing. 


(VI.  8-IO)  DOES  FAITH  PROMOTE  SIN?  113 

So  far,  then,  in  the  main  Paul's  answer  to  the  question,  "  Shall 
we  continue  in  sin?  "  is  this :  that  every  believer,  and  not  merely 
a  most  devout  man  or  two,  is  dead.  It  is  not  that  he  ought 
to  die,  but  his  death  is  an  accomplished  fact  in  Christ  Jesus. 
Baptism  means  death  and- burial.  In  the  crucifixion  of  Christ 
the  believer  sees  himself  crucified  too.  Not  only  were  his 
sins  there,  but  he  himself  was  there,  so  that  the  "  old  man," 
the  former  self,  was  slain.  How  can  he  "  continue  "  in  sin 
when  he  and  his  sins  are  no  more?  The  words  "old  man" 
suggest  a  new  man,  against  whom  there  is  nothing  penal  either 
for  what  he  was  or  is,  or  for  what  he  has  done.  These  are 
objective  facts  of  the  gospel,  and  the  faith  that  has  laid  hold 
of  them  finds  perfect  liberty  before  a  holy  God,  and  is  certain 
of  his  love.  This  faith  opens  the  heart  for  the  incoming 
of  that  love  mentioned  in  v.  5.  When  Christ  is  taken  for  no 
more  than  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  then  baptism  has  wholly 
lost  its  significance,  for  it  buries  the  man  and  not  his  sins, 
and  the  cross  has  been  robbed  of  half  its  efficacy,  for  it 
crucifies  the  body  of  sin  at  the  same  time  in  which  it  puts 
away  its  guilt.  The  power  subjectively  against  continuance 
in  sin  is  belief  in  these  objective  facts  of  the  gospel. 

8- JO*  Sanctification  begins  with  this  chapter  with  the  ques- 
tion, "  Shall  we  continue  in  sin  ?  "  Paul  has  securely  laid  the 
foundation  of  it  in  justification.  There  is  no  break  with  sin 
but  by  trust  in  the  gospel  facts,  and  no  one  can  have  the  power 
of  the  resurrection  hfe  in  his  heart  until  he  dies  with  Christ  in 
order  to  be  raised  with  him.  To  die  is  to  be  justified  from  sin, 
by  which  death  comes  union  with  Christ  in  hfe  before  God. 
Thus  it  is  that  God's  righteousness  is  a  righteousness  by  faith. 

Spiritual  power  flows  into  the  soul  by  union  with  Christ, 
but  that  fact  is  not  developed  until  the  eighth  chapter.  Here 
the  eye  is  still  turned  upward,  not  inward. 

At  this  point,  therefore,  Paul  takes  up  the  second  means 
against  continuance  in  sin;  or  rather  it  is  the  other  side  of 


114  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (VI.  ii) 

what  has  already  been  given,  and  touched  on  just  once  in 
verse  5.  "  He  was  dehvered  for  our  offenses."  This  is  verses 
1-7.  "  He  was  raised  again  for  our  justification."  (See  on 
iv.  25.)  This  is  verses  8-14.  The  behever  dead  with  Christ 
will  surely  "  live  "  with  him,  now  in  this  present  time,  and  then, 
of  course,  ever  hereafter.  It  is  only  the  present  time  that  is 
here  in  view.  Note  that  now  for  the  first  instance  since  iv. 
24  (q.v.)  we  have  the  word  "  beheve,"  signifying,  however,  not 
faith  in  the  gospel  directly,  but  persuasion  or  conviction  of  its 
efficacy.  Since  our  present  Christian  life  depends  wholly  on 
Christ's  life,  since  we  live  only  in  his  life  (see  verse  5  above), 
Paul  need  only  prove  that  Christ,  once  raised,  dies  no  more. 
That  he  died  at  all  was  because  of  sin,  and  for  this  he  died 
"  once  "  for  all.  Sin  has  no  more  dominion  over  him,  and  in 
him  it  has  no  more  dominion  over  the  believer.  And  now 
that  he  lives,  he  lives  to  God,  or  for  God,  for  his  pleasure  and 
glory.  This  is  said  in  proof  that  Christ  can  never  again  die, 
the  suppressed  premise  being  that  he  who  lives  for  God  must 
live  forever.  It  is  also  suggested  that  we  who  hve  by  the  power 
of  that  life  in  him,  and  which  has  become  ours,  will  also  live 
*'  to  God,"  and  so  Hve  both  now  and  evermore. 

n*  With  this  verse  an  exhortation  begins  that  is  continued 
through  the  next  two.  To  "reckon  "  is  to  account  (ii.  26),  to 
"  conclude  "  (iii.  28),  to  think  (ii.  3).  They  were  asked  to  think 
of  themselves  ("yourselves"),  just  as  God's  Word  here  describes 
them  in  Christ,  "dead  unto  sin  "  and  "alive  unto  [or  "for"]  God." 
To  conclude  about  ourselves  what  God  has  declared  about  us  in 
the  gospel  is  faith  (iv.  17).  If  the  gospel  says  we  are  dead  to 
sin  in  Christ,  we  must  say  so  too  ;  if  it  says  we  are  ahve  in  him, 
we  must  so  reckon  ourselves.  This  reckoning  stands  on  the 
gospel  and  not  at  all  on  experience.  The  very  meaning  and 
use  of  this  word  prove  that  Paul  depended  on  a  right  estima- 
tion of  the  gospel  as  the  power  against  sin,  and  not  on  an 
inward  experience  of  something,  except  as  this  estimation  is 


(VI.  12)  DOES  FAITH  PROMOTE  SINf  115 

itself  an  experience.  It  is  not  be  alive  or  become  alive,  but 
account  yourself  now  alive  in  Christ.  The  happy  rendering  in 
the  King  James  version,  "  hkewise,"  shows  the  correspondence 
between  this  verse  and  the  tenth.  As  he  died  to  sin  once  for  all, 
reckon  ye  yourselves  dead  "likewise,"  and  as  he  liveth  unto 
God,  so  "hkewise"  do  ye  ;  for  the  last  phrase,  "in  ["  through  " 
is  not  correct]  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,"  in  verse  1 1  joins  with 
both  "dead"  and  "ahve." 

\2*  And  "  therefore,"  now  that  you  reckon  yourselves  alive 
in  Christ  and  dead  to  sin,— "  therefore  "  looks  back  over  the 
whole  section, — "let  not  sin  reign  in  your  mortal  body."  He 
says  "  mortal "  to  remind  them  of  what  they  are  in  themselves, 
mortal  because  sinful  (viii.  lo).  They  must  "reckon"  them- 
selves pure,  and  this  reckoning  is  their  chief  power  over  sin, 
because  God  graciously  so  reckons  them;  but  in  themselves 
they  are  not  so.  See  how  clearly  he  implies  that  there  is  "  sin  " 
in  this  mortal  body.  But  it  is  now  "  your  "  body ;  before  ac- 
cepting Christ  it  was  "the  body  of  sin."  (For  the  meaning 
of  "  body  "  see  on  verse  6  above.) 

"  Let  not  sin  reign."  This  is  much  more  than  an  appeal  to 
the  exercise  of  will.  It  is  an  appeal  to  accept  and  make 
one's  own  by  faith  all  that  state  which  is  brought  about  by 
union  with  Christ.  The  ideal  Christian  hfe  is  not  a  constant 
battle  with  sin,  but  a  victory  over  it.  Not  until  a  man  sees  him- 
self sinless  in  Christ  by  death  and  resurrection  has  he  found  the 
right  way  of  approach  toward  sinlessness  in  life.  He  can  attend 
to  the  present  when  he  knows  that  he  is  absolved  from  all  that 
he  was  and  did  in  the  past,  as  well  as  from  all  that  he  now  is. 

"  That  ye  should  obey  it  in  the  lusts  thereof."  The  better 
reading  is,  "That  ye  should  obey  its  [the  body's]  desires." 
The  words  "  it  in  "  are  an  unsupported  addition  to  the  true 
text.  "  Lusts  "  is  obsolete  Enghsh  and  should  find  no  place 
in  a  modern  revision.  The  sentence  explains  the  word  "  reign." 
The  persistent  tendency  of  sin  is  to  subject  man  to  a  gratify- 


116  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS    (VI.  13,  14) 

ing  of  his  own  desires.  James  i.  14,  15,  describes  the  steps  by 
which  sin  dethroned  in  Christ  regains  its  scepter.  Note  again 
how  clearly  Paul  implies  that  the  believer  is  still  possessed  of 
the  desires  of  the  body.  As  long  as  he  has  a  body  he  has  these 
desires.  It  is  not  their  presence  nor  the  presence  of  sin  with 
its  clamor  to  reign  that  is  inconsistent  with  saving  union  with 
Christ.  The  gospel  is  a  means  to  save  sinners  (i  Tim.  i.  15). 
It  can  justify  the  "ungodly  "  (iv.  5).  But  what  it  cannot  tol- 
erate is  obedience  to  sin.  It  is  not  the  will  of  the  sinful  man 
that  is  to  be  done,  but  the  will  of  God.  Godet's  rather  vehe- 
ment insistence  that  Paul  here  means  only  physical  desires  is 
wide  of  the  mark.  The  body  is  the  man.  Psychology  is  as 
incompetent  to  explain  Paul  as  geology  is  to  explain  Genesis. 
Moule  is  correct  when  he  says  they  are  "  desires  of  every  kind, 
whether  sensual  or  not."  For  see  Colossians  iii.  3,  5,  8,  9. 
Even  a  desire  after  some  particular  service  to  God  may  be 
contrary  to  his  will  (i  Thess.  ii.  17,  18).  It  must  not  be  for- 
gotten that  when  "  our  old  man  "  was  slain  at  the  cross  these 
"lusts"  were  crucified  with  him  (Gal.  v.  24). 

\Z*  Paul  descends  from  the  general  to  the  particular.  The 
"  members  "  of  the  body,  its  various  faculties  and  capabilities, 
physical  and  mental,  must  not  be  yielded  at  any  time  "unto  sin  " 
as  weapons  ("  instruments  ")  for  unrighteousness,  but  (now  he 
turns  from  the  negative  to  the  positive)  "yield,"  by  one  de- 
cisive act,  "  yourselves  to  God."  To  "  yield  "  means  to  present 
for  service.  This  topic  is  taken  up  at  length  in  chapter  xii. 
It  is  in  vain  for  one  to  present  himself  to  God  for  service 
except  in  the  gospel  fashion — present  himself  not  merely  as  a 
forgiven  sinner,  but,  by  faith  in  the  gospel,  as  one  "  alive  from 
the  dead,"  "a  living  sacrifice"  (xii.  i);  and  present  once  for 
all  to  God  the  "  members  "  of  the  body  (same  as  above)  as 
weapons  for  righteousness,  practical  holiness. 

J4.  And  you  can  make  this  holy  warfare,  "  for  "  you  have 
not  only  been  set  free  from  sin  by  dying  to  it,  but  it  has  also 


(VI.  15,  16)        DOES  FAITH  PROMOTE  SW?  117 

lost  another  means  of  hindering  you,  the  law :  "  ye  are  not 
under  law,"  a  matter  to  be  fully  explained  in  the  next  chapter 
(see  under  iii.  20) ;  ye  are  "under  grace."  Grace  and  law  are 
antagonistic  and  mutually  exclusive.  Sin  and  law  go  together, 
and  yet,  should  the  believer  chance  to  go  astray,  he  is  still 
under  grace.  This  raises  the  serious  question  of  the  second 
(2)  section— whether  sinning  is  not  promoted  by  gratuitous 
justification. 

J5#  "Shall  we  sin,  because  we  are  not  under  law?  "  This 
question  was  sure  to  arise,  because  human  society  and  govern- 
ments know  of  no  way  to  restrain  sin  but  by  law  and  its  pen- 
alties. The  state's  ruler  is  "  the  minister  of  God,  a  revenger 
to  execute  wrath  upon  him  that  doeth  evil "  (xiii.  4)  in  breaking 
the  law.  The  assertion  "  ye  are  not  under  law  "  was  made  to 
turn  the  justified  man's  gaze  from  Moses  to  Christ,  from  law 
to  grace.  That  this  can  lead  to  an  act  of  sin  Paul  denies  with 
vehemence — "  God  forbid  "  ;  but  he  knew  well  that  his  simple, 
radical  declaration  "not  under  law"  could  not  be  accepted 
without  defense.  And  even  with  his  defense  many  are  disposed 
to  think  that  the  obvious  meaning  cannot  be  the  true  one. 

t6.  With  this  verse  the  answer  begins.  That  answer  is  found 
in  the  nature  of  sin.  Its  immediate  effect  is  slavery ;  its  out- 
come is  eternal  death.  To  repeal  the  law  against  taking  poison 
with  suicidal  intent  would  not  affect  the  character  of  the  drugs. 
Paul's  readers  know  this, —  "  Know  ye  not?  " — so  that  he  only 
reminds  them  what  the  result  must  be  if  they  sin.  Faith  in 
God  is,  first  of  all,  faith  in  the  ruinous  power  of  sin  (i.  32). 
The  compactness  possible  in  the  Greek  of  this  sentence  makes 
a  Hteral  translation  somewhat  difficult.  It  might  be  para- 
phrased sHghtly:  Know  ye  not,  to  whom  ye  present  your- 
selves as  servants  to  the  extent  of  obedience,  his  slaves  ye  are 
whom  ye  obey,  whether  sin's  servants,  whose  end  is  death,  or 
obedience's  servants,  whose  end  is  practical  righteousness? 
This  states. the  universal  law  that  a  man  becomes  the  moral 


118  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (VI.  17) 

subject  of  what  he  does.  If  he  yields  to  sin  that  sin  gets 
a  grip  upon  him.  If  he  Ues  once,  not  only  is  he  Hkely  to  He 
again,  but  that  lie  has  him  in  its  power.  It  has  soiled  his  con- 
science and  dimmed  the  light  in  his  heart.  This  is  also  the 
teaching  in  Matthew  vi.  24  ;  John  viii.  34  ;  2  Peter  ii.  19.  No 
one  knows  this  so  well  as  the  believer.  To  be  sure,  he  may 
repent  of  his  sin,  but  only  Christ,  and  not  the  law,  can  restore 
him.  It  is  also  true  that  acts  of  obedience  tend  to  a  habit  and 
enslave  their  doer  in  the  comfortable  bonds  of  righteousness. 
The  two  words  "  whether,"  "  or,"  show  that  life  has  but  two 
ways  open,  one  or  the  other  of  which  every  man  must  choose; 
there  is  no  middle  course. 

J7«  After  stating  this  law  that  holds  in  all  moral  action,  he 
speaks  of  the  happy  condition  of  the  Romans,  that,  whereas 
they  had  been  sin's  slaves,  thanks  be  to  God,  they  had  escaped 
bondage  by  obeying  from  the  heart,  sincerely  and  not  in  mere 
act  of  the  flesh,  that  "  form  "  or  mold  of  teaching  into  which 
they  were  delivered.  The  King  James  translation  is  wrong 
here.  It  does  indeed  seem  natural  to  say  a  form  of  teaching 
"  which  was  delivered  you,"  but  this  is  not  Paul's  assertion.  If 
it  were,  one  shining  point  would  be  lost,  that  both  they  and  God 
conjoined  in  the  act  of  their  salvation.  They  obeyed  from  the 
heart  the  type  of  teaching— the  gospel— into  whose  power  his 
grace  delivered  them.  The  commentators  debate  the  implica- 
tion here,  whether  there  were  different  types  of  doctrine  among 
the  apostles.  There  was  a  difference  in  presentation  (see  on  ii. 
16),  but  none  in  form  or  mold.  In  this  debate  it  is  strangely 
overlooked  that  the  implied  antithesis  is  with  that  other  "  form 
of  knowledge  and  of  the  truth  in  the  law  "  (ii.  20).  To  be  sure, 
in  the  passage  here  quoted  there  stands  another  word  for 
"form,"  but  practically  synonymous  with  the  one  before  us. 
The  context,  whether  we  shall  be  under  law  to  be  restrained 
from  sin,  or  under  the  gospel,  settles  the  question  of  the  an- 
tithesis and  also  explains  Paul's  earnest  words. 


(VI.  18,  19)         DOES  FAITH  PROMOTE   SIN?  119 

"  God  be  thanked."  Paul  had  had  no  Httle  trouble  on  this 
point  (Gal.  v.  i,  2). 

It  is  impossible  to  think  that  in  this  phrase,  "  delivered  into 
a  mold  of  teaching,"  Paul  did  not  refer  to  what  he  said  in 
verse  4  above.  Baptism  is  a  symbolic  mold  or  pattern  of 
doctrine  into  which  the  Romans  could  be  said  to  be  delivered, 
and  in  accordance  with  which  they  are  fashioned,  for  its  idea 
is  dead  to  sin  and  alive  with  Christ.  He  who  called  the  same 
ordinance  a  "washing"  or  a  laver  "of  regeneration"  (Tit.  iii.  5) 
could  consistently  call  it  a  mold  of  doctrine. 

t8»  This  verse  continues  the  thought  of  the  last,  the  happy 
condition  into  which  the  Romans  were  brought  by  their  heart 
obedience  to  the  gospel ;  being  set  at  liberty  from  sin  by  dying 
to  it,  they  are  now  servants  to  righteousness.  This  word  "  ser- 
vants," used  all  along,  shows  that  now  practical  and  not  im- 
puted righteousness  is  meant.  At  the  very  beginning  of  their  s 
Christian  course  they  were  delivered  from  the  guilt  and  from 
the  power  of  sin  in  order  to  do  acceptable  works.  They  did 
not  serve  to  be  saved ;  they  were  saved  to  serve. 

J9«  "  I  speak  after  the  manner  of  men."  For  using  the 
words  "  servants  of  righteousness,"  Paul  explains,  almost  apolo- 
gizes. This  expression  belongs  not  strictly  to  the  believer's 
relation  to  Christ,  but  is  human,  "  after  the  manner  of  men." 
The  fact  is,  as  stated  in  v.  17,  that  the  saint  is  not  a  servant, 
but  a  king.  But  in  view  of  the  "  infirmity  of  the  flesh,"  the 
feebleness  of  spiritual  comprehension  (Eph.  iii.  16)  on  the  part 
of  the  Romans,  he  uses  a  phrase  which  they  could  understand. 
While  it  is  far  from  expressing  the  whole  truth,  it  is  in  the  way 
toward  it  and  cannot  lead  astray.  This  language  of  servitude,  ) 
while  it  does  not  assert  their  lofty  spiritual  dignity,  conveys 
the  full  measure  of  their  duty — slaves  to  righteousness.  " 

In  a  further  use  of  this  human  metaphor,  he  exhorts  them 
to  a  transfer  of  energy.  Just  as  their  powers  and  faculties  had 
once  been  slaves  to  the  monsters  "  uncleanness  and  iniquity," 


120  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS     (VI.  20-23) 

so  that  the  issue  was  iniquity,  they  were  to  present  these  "  even 
so  "  as  slaves  to  righteousness,  that  the  issue  might  be  hohness. 
In  yielding  themselves  as  servants  to  do  right,  there  issued  at 
once  a  state  of  mind  and  heart  called  holiness.  He  does  not 
say  yet  that  this  hoHness  comes  from  the  Holy  Spirit. 

20,  2\.  Paul  urges  them  ("for")  to  this  holy  enslavement 
by  reminding  them  that  the  only  freedom  which  they  had  in 
their  former  condition  was  freedom  relative  to  righteousness. 
Such  having  been  their  condition,  he  asks,  "What  fruit  had 
ye  accordingly  ["  then  "  is  ambiguous]  in  those  things  [those 
sinful  deeds  and  habits]  whereof  ye  are  now  ashamed?  " 
(i  Pet.  iv.  3.)  They  were  "now"  ashamed,  which  is  to  their 
credit  and  proves  their  enlightenment.  They  were  not  "  then  " 
ashamed,  for  this  was  impossible,  because  sin  never  sees  its  own 
hideous  face  until  it  looks  into  the  gospel  with  believing  eyes. 
The  question  all  the  time  before  the  reader  is,  "  Shall  we  sin, 
because  we  are  not  under  law?  "  Men  are  not  likely  to  repeat 
that  for  which  they  are  "  now  "  ashamed.  "  What  fruit  had 
ye?"  I  ask  this  painful  question  because  ("for")  ye  know 
"  the  end  of  those  things  is  [spiritual]  death."  There  was  no 
fruit.  Note  that  Paul  has  quietly  passed  from  the  enslavement 
produced  by  sin  to  its  legitimate  result — death. 

22^  This  verse  describes  their  present  blessed  condition  in 
contrast  with  their  former  one,  pictured  in  verses  20  and  21. 
He  does  not  now  use  the  semi-figurative  words  "  obedience," 
"righteousness,"  "mold  of  teaching"  (see  Moule,  /;/  loc.),\ivX 
that  which  comprehends  them  all— "servants  to  God."  This 
service  has  immediate  fruit  issuing  in  holiness,  whose  end  is 
eternal  life.  Here  are  two  strange  paradoxes :  the  end  of  sin 
is  death  that  never  dies,  and  the  end  of  holiness  is  "  eternal " 
life.  The  order  and  number  of  the  terms  must  be  noted- 
service  to  God,  holiness,  eternal  hfe.  The  middle  link  of  the 
three  cannot  be  omitted  (Heb.  xii.  14). 

23.  "  Wages  of  sin ;   .  .  .  gift  of  God."     This  verse  gives 


(VI.  23)  DOES  FAITH  PROMOTE   SIN?  121 

the  solemn  proof  for  the  last  three.  It  lies  in  the  fundamental 
law  of  the  moral  universe.  Things  are  so  constituted  that  sin 
ends  only  in  death,  and  grace  in  eternal  Hfe.  That  which 
comes  to  sin  is  wages.  Wages  are  what  is  due.  The  word 
means  soldier's  pay.  Sin  is  warfare  against  God,  and  the 
appropriate  pay  is  death.  But  that  which  comes  to  the  servants 
of  God  is  not  wages ;  service  is  due  him  and  merits  no  reward 
(Luke  xvii.  lo).  But  that  which  comes  to  them  is  vastly  more 
than  any  wages  which  they  could  earn— it  is  a  gift  of  God,  it 
is  eternal  Hfe.  The  argument  closes,  as  each  one  does,  with 
the  solemnly  accumulated  titles  of  the  Redeemer :  "  The  gift 
of  God  is  eternal  life  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 

In  a  word,  then,  the  question,  "  Shall  we  continue  in  sin  ?  "  is 
answered.  The  answer  is  in  the  gospel,  the  work  of  Christ. 
How  can  one  continue  in  a  state  from  which  he  is  already 
deHvered?  Death  was  due  as  the  wages  of  sin,  and  that  death 
was  paid  in  Christ.  If  it  is,  then,  no  longer  service  to  sin,  but 
service  to  God,  life  is  needed,— a  dead  man  cannot  serve 
God,— and  Christ's  Hfe  is  reckoned  to  the  beHever.  Belief  of 
the  gospel  is  the  power  against  sin,  and  belief  is  to  reckon  one's 
self  as  God  reckons.  In  Christ  man  is  guiltless ;  this  is  his 
standing,  which  enables  him  to  shun  sinning  because  he  now 
knows  its  destructive  power.  BeHeving  acquaintance  with 
Christ  in  his  gospel  gives  deliverance  from  sin  and  from 
sinning. 


CHAPTER  VII 


THE  LAW  CANNOT  SANCTIFY 


In  iii.  20  it  was  said  that  "  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  shall  no 
flesh  be  justified  in  God's  sight." 

In  V.  20  there  is  a  second  radical  utterance  about  the  law 
— it  "entered,  that  the  offense  might  abound." 

In  vi.  14  there  comes  a  third  amazing  statement— "Ye  are 
not  under  law." 

In  this  chapter  these  three  points  are  taken  up  in  the  reverse 
order,  and  elaborated  subsidiary  to  the  leading  idea  that  the 
law  cannot  save  from  indwelling  sin.  (i)  How  and  why  the 
justified  are  delivered  from  the  law  (verses  1-6).  (2)  If  the 
law  makes  sin  to  abound,  is  the  law  sinful  (verses  7-13)?  (3) 
No  man  is  saved  by  the  law,  for  no  man  is  dehvered  from  the 
flesh  by  it  (verses  14-25). 

There  was  a  profound  historical  necessity  for  the  discussion 
embraced  in  this  chapter.  Whether  the  composition  of  the 
Roman  church  was  in  the  main  Jewish  or  Gentile,  its  Bible, 
which  it  read  and  by  which  it  knew  God  and  Christ,  was  the 
Old  Testament,  the  book  of  the  law.  The  law  was  divine, 
given  with  most  imposing  sanctions  on  Sinai.  For  their  own 
stability,  as  well  as  for  a  means  of  defense  against  acute  and 
captious  Jewish  adversaries,  Paul  must  make  these  Roman 
believers  see  why  that  law  was  not  binding  on  them  in  their 
relation  to  God.  The  necessity  was  the  more  urgent  from  the 
fact  that  he  defends  justification  by  faith  by  these  same  Old 
Testament  Scriptures. 

122 


(VII.  1-4)  THE   LAW  CANNOT  SANCTIFY  123 

In  writing  to  the  Hebrews,  who  were  in  danger  of  returning 
to  the  law,  there  was  equal  need  of  showing  them  not  only  its 
impotency  to  save,  but  that  they  were  no  longer  under  it.  The 
latter  came  about  by  the  radical  change  in  the  order  of  the 
priesthood  (Heb.  vii.  12,  19). 

In  the  well-nigh  vehement  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  Paul 
discusses  this  same  question,  but  more  in  its  relation  to  justi- 
fication than  to  sanctification.  Galatians  is  suggested  in  our 
fourth  chapter  rather  than  in  this  seventh. 

This  question  of  the  law  was  the  meeting-point  of  the  enemies 
and  friends  of  the  gospel.  More  than  once  his  attitude  toward 
it  came  well-nigh  costing  Paul  his  life  (Acts  xxi.  28,  31).  It 
is  not  strange,  then,  that  we  meet  it  here  and  in  almost  every 
one  of  his  epistles. 

Paul's  convincing  teaching  on  the  subject  of  law  would  bring 
a  comfort  and  a  relief  to  the  believing  Jew,  and  to  the  believ- 
ing Gentile  as  well,  that  can  hardly  be  appreciated.  His  in- 
struction was  their  answer  for  abandoning  an  old  and  divinely 
established  faith  for  a  novel  and  untried  one.  The  former 
was  the  trust  of  the  fathers  and  the  prophets;  the  latter,  it 
could  be  said,  was  advocated  by  no  one  but  heretics  and 
renegades.  But  it  has  also  intrinsic  and  permanent  value.  It 
is  in  the  very  blood  of  men  everywhere  to  seek  to  set  themselves 
right  with  God  by  doing  good  works.  This  chapter  shows  how 
futile  all  such  efforts  are. 

1-4.  "  Or  know  ye  not,  brethren?  "  The  chapter  is  linked 
by  the  word  "or" — omitted  in  the  King  James  version — 
with  the  fourteenth  verse  of  the  preceding  one.  He  writes 
to  them  as  "men  who  know  the  law."  The  Revised  Ver- 
sion is  preferable  here.  They  knew  the  law,  for  it  was  con- 
stantly read  and  expounded  in  their  hearing.  They  knew 
its  permanent  character,  that  it  held  dominion  over  man  for 
life.  In  proof,  he  cites  a  single  item  from  the  code.  A  wife 
was  held  by  the  marriage  bond  as  long  as  her  husband  lived ; 


124  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS       (VI I.  1-4) 

but  if  he  died  she  was  free,  being  no  longer  a  wife,  but  the 
same  as  a  virgin.  She  could  marry  again.  Here  is  where 
this  exceedingly  simple  illustration  grows  not  only  very  pro- 
found, but  at  the  first  sight  very  perplexing.  The  point  that 
Paul  is  after  is  that  the  law  holds  the  man  till  he  dies.  But 
in  the  illustration  it  was  the  husband  that  died  and  the  wife 
became  free.  And  not  a  few  commentators  are  puzzled  and 
make  dark  what  Paul  intended  to  be  plain.  Moule  says: 
"The  metaphorical  language  is  not  strictly  consistent."  It  is 
both  consistent  and  scriptural.  Sanday  says :  "  In  the  working 
out  of  this  illustration  there  is  a  certain  amount  of  intricacy, 
due  to  an  apparent  shifting  of  the  standpoint  in  the  middle  of 
the  paragraph."  But  how  strange  that  Paul  should  attempt  to 
clarify  a  simple  statement  by  an  intricate  illustration!  He 
adds :  "  It  is  strange  to  speak  of  the  same  persons  at  one 
moment  as  '  killed  '  and  the  next  as  *  married  again.'  "  But 
have  we  not  had  this  "strange  "  thing  several  times  in  the  previ- 
ous chapter?  "  Our  old  man  was  crucified  with  him,  .  .  .  that 
we  should  not  serve  sin  "  (verse  6).  "  If  we  be  dead  with  Christ, 
we  believe  that  we  shall  also  [now]  live  with  him  "  (verse  8). 
(See  Col.  iii.  3.)  Shedd  makes  the  amazing  statement  that  the 
first  husband  stands  for  the  law.  Why,  the  woman  was  not 
married  to  the  marriage  law,  but  to  a  man,  and  now  the  law 
bound  her.  He  adds :  "  If  the  figure  had  been  regularly 
carried  out."  Its  regularity  is  beautiful,  but  how  is  one  to  see 
it  who  makes  the  first  husband  the  law  ?  Meyer's  explanation 
strikes  the  right  note,  but  hardly  goes  far  enough.  When  Paul 
begins,  "  I  speak  to  you  as  those  who  know  the  law,"  this  is 
not  merely  incidental  or  a  compliment,  but  the  key  to  the 
passage.  The  moment  he  mentioned  marriage  their  thought 
would  at  once  revert  to  Genesis  ii.  24  :  "  And  they  shall  be  one 
flesh."  And,  therefore,  when  the  husband  dies  the  wife  dies 
too  ;  and  the  law,  that  binds  while  life  lasts,  binds  her  no  longer, 
for  she  is  dead,    The  wife  is  dead ;  the  woman  reniains,    The 


(VII.  1-4)  THE  LAW  CANNOT  SANCTIFY  125 

context,  especially  before,  but  also  after,  makes  it  inevitable  that 
the  first  husband,  though  he  is  not  mentioned,  is  none  other 
than  the  crucified  Christ.  "  Our  old  man  is  crucified  with 
him."  These  Romans,  from  what  Paul  had  already  written, 
could  not  avoid  beheving  that  they  died  in  his  death,  because 
in  some  way  they  were  in  union  with  him.  He  was  made 
under  the  law  that  he  might  redeem  them  that  were  under  the 
law  (Gal.  iv.  4,  5).  He  and  they  died  together  (2  Cor.  v.  14). 
Christ  while  under  the  law  was  the  first  hu.sband. 

The  third  verse  serves  to  emphasize  the  rigor  of  the  marriage 
law  in  its  demand  that  husband  and  wife  remain  one,  for  if, 
"  while  her  husband  liveth,  she  be  married  to  another  man,  she 
shall  [by  the  divine  law  itself  j  be  called  [by  the  harsh  name]  an 
adulteress :  but  if  her  husband  be  dead,  she  is  free  from  that 
law,"  because,  being  one  flesh  (Mark  x.  8)  with  him,  she  died 
too.  She  is  no  more  a  wife  than  if  she  had  never  married. 
She  is  dead  to  the  law  of  her  husband,  so  that  it  has  no  longer 
a  claim  upon  her.  She  can  be  "  married  to  another  man  "  if 
she  chooses  to  marry. 

The  fourth  verse  brings  in  the  conclusion.  It  significantly 
begins  with  the  word  "  wherefore."  It  might  be  rendered  "  so 
that."  It  shows  the  exactness  of  the  parallel  between  the 
woman's  case  and  that  of  the  believer  in  Christ.  It  is  God's 
law  that  the  woman  should  be  considered  dead  in  her  husband's 
death,  "so  that  ye,"  under  a  similar  law,  may  be  reckoned 
dead  in  Christ's  death.  Meyer  denies  this  harmony,  and  makes 
the  "  wherefore  "  purely  inferential.  The  sense  is  not  materiallv 
affected ;  for  the  point  reached  is  this :  as  the  woman  died  to 
the  marriage  law  in  the  death  of  her  husband,  so  "  ye  also," 
like  the  woman,  "  my  brethren,"  died  by  means  of  **  the  body 
of  Christ "  on  the  cross  to  the  whole  Mosaic  law ;  "  that  ye 
should  be  married  to  another,  even  to  him  who  is  raised  from 
the  dead."  In  the  case  of  the  woman  the  husbands  are  two 
and  distinct ;  in  the  case  of  the  Romans  the  husband  is  the 


126  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS         (VII.  1-4) 

same,  but  in  two  different  states,  one,  under  the  law,  born  of 
Mary,  and  the  other  the  resurrection  state.  This  duahty  in  the 
relation  of  Christ  to  his  own  was  taught  first  of  all  by  himself. 
(See  John  xiv.  18,  19  ;  xvi.  16.)  In  2  Corinthians  v.  14-16,  Paul, 
in  speaking  of  living  to  the  raised  Christ,  declares:  "Yea, 
though  we  have  known  Christ  after  the  flesh,  yet  now  hence- 
forth know  we  him  no  more."  But  our  text  itself  looks  at 
Christ  in  two  conditions — "the  body  of  Christ"  and  "him 
who  is  raised  from  the  dead."  These  are  identical  in  sub- 
stance, but  different  in  relation.  The  former  was  with  men 
under  the  law ;  the  latter  belongs  to  the  heavenly  world.  By 
death  and  resurrection  Jesus  passed  from  one  to  the  other,  so 
that  when  he  met  his  disciples  after  rising  from  the  tomb,  he 
virtually  said  he  was  no  longer  with  them  (Luke  xxiv.  44). 

The  nature  of  that  union  which  existed  between  Christ  and 
the  race  before  the  cross,  so  that  his  death  was  their  death,  is 
nowhere  revealed ;  but  to  bring  about  such  a  union  may  be 
the  chief  reason  for  the  incarnation. 

The  union  with  Christ  is  twofold,  one  in  the  incarnation,  by 
which  he  stood  for  the  race  in  such  a  way  that  when  the  One 
died  they  all  died—"  Ye  were  made  dead  to  the  law  by  the 
body  of  Christ."  This  is  the  union  with  the  first  husband. 
But  now,  secondly,  the  raised  Christ  is  preached,  and  men  may 
become  united  with  him  in  the  Holy  Spirit  through  faith.  This 
is  the  second  and  the  saving  union,  made  possible  by  the  first. 

That  men  became  dead  to  the  law  by  the  body  of  Christ 
does  not  make  their  salvation  actual,  because  the  intent  of  that 
death  was  not  salvation,  but  that  they  might  be  married  to 
another,  to  him  who  is  raised  from  the  dead,  in  whom,  and  in 
no  other  way,  the  salvation  is  found. 

But  how  did  this  question  of  the  Mosaic  law  affect  the 
Gentiles,  who  were  not  under  it?  In  a  very  true  sense  they 
were  under  it.  It  was  "against"  them  (Col.  ii.  14).  When 
Moses  shut  up  the  Jew  under  law  he  shut  the  Gentile  out,  so 


(VII.  5,  6)  THE  LAW  CANNOT  SANCTIFY  127 

that  the  Jew  knew  of  no  way  of  saving  his  uncircumcised 
neighbor  but  by  proselytism  (Acts  xv.  5).  God's  way  was  to 
remove  the  barrier  of  the  law  by  breaking  down  this  "  middle 
wall  of  partition."  Christ  reconciled  both  (Jew  and  Gentile) 
unto  God  in  one  body  by  the  cross,  having  slain  the  enmity 
by  it,  so  that  now  "  both  have  access  by  one  Spirit  unto  the 
Father"  (Eph.  ii.  13-18).  In  the  matter  of  law  the  cross  did 
as  much  for  the  Gentile  as  for  the  Jew,  in  that  it  brought  about 
that  primal  relation  of  men  to  God  when  there  was  no  law. 

This  fourth  verse  gives  the  heart  of  the  epistle  and  of  the 
gospel.  The  Christian's  life  is  not  a  memory,  not  an  imitation 
of  one  who  long  ago  lived,  the  former  husband,  but  a  wedlock 
union  with  him  who  now  lives  in  them  and  for  them. 

The  object  of  the  marriage  with  the  risen  Christ  is  that  "  we 
might  bring  forth  fruit  for  God."  The  figure  of  the  marriage 
is  continued  in  the  idea  of  fruitfulness.  The  fruit  is  love  and 
joy  and  peace,  a  mind  in  harmony  with  God.  The  character 
of  this  fruit  may  be  known  in  its  origination  from  a  heart  in 
union  with  Christ  to  be  its  author.  It  is  divine  and  spiritual, 
and  so  fit  "  for  God."  The  very  best  that  even  the  best  man 
can  produce  outside  of  spiritual  union  with  Christ  is  in  God's 
sight  but  bastard  fruit. 

5»  This  verse  shows  why  no  fruit  could  be  produced  for 
God  under  the  law.  "When  we  were  in  the  flesh,"  not  in 
Christ,  but  under  law,  "the  passions"  (a  better  word  than 
"  motions  "),— the  excitabilities  and  evil  capabilities  in  the  heart 
leading  to  their  several  "sins,"— these  passions,  "which  were 
[stirred  to  operate]  by  [means  of]  the  law,  did  work  [were 
active]  in  our  members,"  mental  and  physical,  to  the  extent  of 
bringing  forth  fruit  for  death.  This  stirring  of  the  passions  to 
opposition  Paul  will  elaborate  in  the  next  section. 

6»  This  verse  describes  the  present  happy  state  of  the 
Romans  freed  from  the  law  and  in  Christ.  "  But  now  we  are 
freed  [the  same  word  is  translated  "  loosed  "  in  verse  2  above] 


128  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS        (VII,  7,  8) 

from  the  law" — Moses'  moral  and  ceremonial  law.  How? 
Just  as  the  wife  was :  by  "  having  died  to  that  in  which  we  were 
held."  The  King  James  version  is  quite  faulty  here.  We  were 
freed  so  as  to  (not  "  should  ")  do  service  "in  newness  of  [the] 
spirit,  and  not  in  the  oldness  of  the  letter."  The  newness  is  the 
new  spiritual  state  or  union  with  Christ ;  the  oldness  of  the  letter 
was  their  former  state  under  the  law.  The  letter  means  the 
law.  This  new  service  produced  holy  fruit ;  the  service  under 
law  brought  forth  fruit  for  death. 

7^  8*  But  if  we  had  to  be  absolved  from  the  law,  just  as  we 
were  absolved  from  the  dominion  of  sin,  in  order  to  serve  God, 
"is  the  law  sin?  "  With  this  inquiry  the  second  point  in  the 
chapter  is  introduced.  (See  remarks  at  the  beginning  of  the 
chapter  and  (2)  in  analysis.)  Paul  replies  in  the  negative  with 
his  usual  vehemence — "  God  forbid."  His  sole  and  decisive 
proof  for  this  negative  answer  is  that  that  which  reveals  sin 
cannot  itself  be  sin  (Eph.  v.  13).  "  I  had  not  [experimentally] 
known  sin,  but  by  [means  of]  the  law."  He  cites  the  tenth 
commandment  to  illustrate  his  meaning.  For  the  words  "  lust," 
"  covet,"  and  "  concupiscence  "  there  is  but  one  word,  verb 
and  noun,  in  the  original— "to  desire":  "I  had  not  known 
desire,  except  the  law  had  said.  Thou  shalt  not  desire."  But 
the  moment  that  command  came  the  sin  in  my  heart  took  the 
command  as  an  occasion  to  stir  up  within  me  every  kind  of 
desire.  I  thought  of  a  thousand  things  which  I  wanted,  and 
I  longed  for  them  now  that  they  were  forbidden.  In  quoting 
only  a  part  of  the  command,  omitting  as  he  does  the  specifi- 
cations under  it  in  Deuteronomy,  Paul  shows  that  he  under- 
stands it  in  its  most  sweeping  extent.  It  forbids  every  strictly 
human  desire.  Understood  thus,  it  has  the  same  awful  effect 
on  men  to-day  that  it  had  on  Paul.  It  cannot  be  kept;  it 
grinds  to  powder.  The  heart  is  nothing  but  a  nest  of  selfish 
desires,  to  every  one  of  which  the  command  says  no.  The  com- 
mentators take  the  sword  out  of  the  law's  hand  in  saying  it  for- 


(VII.  9)  THE  LAW  CANNOT  SANCTIFY  120 

bids  only  "irregular desire,"  "illicit  desire"  (Sanday) :  "desires 
after  what  is  forbidden  "  (Meyer).  This  quenches  the  fierce 
blaze  of  the  Sinaitic  fire  in  the  command  and  virtually  reduces 
the  ten  laws  to  nine;  for  if  the  tenth  forbids  only  what  is 
irregular  and  illicit,  it  merely  reiterates  those  which  are  given 
before  it,  and  is  a  feeble  summation  instead  of  a  burning 
climax.  Moreover,  how  could  Saul  of  Tarsus,  with  his  blame- 
less legal  righteousness  (Phil.  iii.  6)  and  his  good  conscience 
(Acts  xxiii.  i)— how  could  such  a  one  as  he  "die"  before  a 
law  which  inhibited  only  the  "  irregular,"  the  "  ilhcit,"  and  the 
"  desires  after  what  is  forbidden  "?  In  this  sense  he  had  kept 
the  tenth  law  as  every  pious  Pharisee  did,  and  as  every  moral 
but  unregenerate  man  does  to-day.  It  was  only  when  he  came 
to  see  that  it  was  desire  itself  that  was  forbidden,  that  the  sin 
lay  in  the  wish  itself,  not  in  the  thing  wished  for,— it  was  when 
he  read  the  command  just  as  he  here  gives  it,  "  Thou  shalt  not 
desire^'— \h2X  he  died  under  its  power.  If  it  is  said  that  this 
interpretation  is  impractical,  that  it  dries  up  the  springs  of  life, 
the  answer  is,  just  this  is  its  intent,  so  that  men  may  seek  to 
escape  "  the  corruption  that  is  in  the  world  by  desire  "  (2  Pet. 
i.  4).  The  will  absolutely  subject  to  God,  admitted  by  all  to 
be  the  divine  requirement,  is  practically  impossible  unless  the 
desires  are  likewise  subject.  What  God  has  given  men — and 
he  has  given  much— it  is  but  gratitude  to  take;  but  every 
desire  beyond  is  under  the  ban  of  the  tenth  law. 

"  For  without  the  law  sin  was  dead."  It  is  not  the  law  in 
its  letter  that  stirs  up  sin,  but  the  law  in  its  deep  spiritual 
meaning,  as  Jesus  interpreted  it  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 
Until  this  real  meaning  dawns  on  the  heart  and  conscience  sin 
lies  inactive  and  is  dead. 

9^  "  When  the  law  came."  It  is  not  just  clear  what  Paul 
means  by  these  words.  When  did  the  law  come  to  him?  His 
history  shows  that  the  time  could  not  possibly  have  been  when 
at  twelve  years  of  age  he,  like  other  Jewish  boys,  was  put  under 


130  THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS    (VII.  lo,  ii) 

it  and  became  a  son  of  the  law  (Godet's  view).  Most  likely 
he  refers  to  his  history  on  the  Damascus  road,  when  the  light 
smote  him.  He  learned  then  that  instead  of  serving  God  he 
was  obnoxious  to  him,  so  that  for  three  days  he  groped  in 
darkness  without  eating  and  drinking.  At  length  he  prayed, 
and  found  hfe  in  professing  faith  in  Christ  (Acts  ix.  17,  18; 
xxii.  16).  Up  to  the  time  of  this  experience  he  was,  in  the 
Jewish  sense,  under  the  law,  but  really  "  without  it."  It  had 
not  yet  "come"  to  his  heart  and  understanding.  He  was 
"  alive  "  ;  that  is,  every  unregenerate  activity  of  his  soul  was  in 
full  exercise  without  restraint.  But  when  the  heart-searching 
law  broke  in  upon  his  apprehension,  he  not  only  saw  that  he 
had  broken  it  at  every  point,  but  the  sin  which  he  had  not  felt 
before  arose  in  active  rebelHon  against  that  law,  and  he  died. 
The  penalty  for  rebellion  was  death  (Num.  xxvii.  13,  14).  The 
language  "  aHve  "  and  "  died  "  is  metaphorical,  like  i  Thess. 
iii.  8  and  i  Cor.  xv.  31. 

to.  "  And  the  commandment,  which  [was  intended  for]  life, 
I  found  [when  it  came  to  my  sinful  heart]  to  result  in  death 
[for  I  could  not  keep  it]."  Paul  is  not  excusing  himself,  nor 
pitying  himself;  and  he  is  at  the  farthest  from  saying  in  the 
words,  "I  had  not  known  sin,"  "sin  revived,"  that  the  law 
created  sin.  This  is  the  point :  the  pool  of  his  heart  had  looked 
like  a  spring  of  sweet  water.  The  law  was  the  staff  that  stirred 
it  up  and  showed  it  to  be  nothing  but  mud  at  the  bottom  and 
full  of  all  hideous  reptiles.  The  question  of  guilt  is  not  be- 
fore him,  but  the  revealing  power  of  the  law. 

n.  "For  sin  .  .  .  slew  me."  This  verse  supports  the  last 
one  in  showing  the  process  by  which  the  law  brought  about 
"death."  Sin,  like  the  tempter  before  Eve  (Gen.  iii.  1-13), 
taking  the  commandment  for  a  starting-point,  an  "  occasion," 
deceived  him.  Sin  led  him,  as  Eve  was  led,  to  think  that  the 
command  was  depriving  him  of  some  good ;  but  in  taking  that 
which  seemed  good  he  gathered  death  with  it.  The  law  rose 
up  against  him  and  pronounced  his  doom. 


(VII.  12,  13)       THE   LAW  CANNOT  SANCTIFY  131 

\2^  The  conclusion  about  the  law  follows  not  exactly  as  an 
inference  from  an  argument,  but  as  an  exhibition  of  the  law's 
holiness  given  on  the  dark  background  of  sin.  The  question 
of  verse  7  is  answered.  "  Is  the  law  sin?  "  No ;  "  the  law  is 
holy,  and  the  commandment  [is]  holy  [for  it  discloses  sin],  and 
just  [or  "righteous,"  because  it  condemns  sin  to  death],  and 
good  [or  "beneficent,"  because  its  aim  is  "life"]."  Bengel's 
exposition  of  these  adjectives,  followed  in  some  commentaries, 
is  lexical,  but  not  logical. 

J  3*  This  assertion  about  the  goodness  or  beneficence  of  the 
law  starts  an  acute  objection :  "  Was  then  that  which  is 
good  made  death  unto  me  ?  "  Can  wholesome  bread  prove 
poison  to  the  hungry  man  who  eats  it?  Does  fresh,  pure  water 
start  a  fever  instead  of  allaying  thirst?  How  can  that  which 
is  admitted  to  be  "good,"  the  law,  prove  to  be  "death  to 
me"?  This  subtle  objection  is  not  only  answered,  but  turned 
into  an  argument.  It  was  not  the  law  that  brought  death, 
"  but  sin."  And  sin  wrought  death,  "  that  [in  the  purpose  of 
God  in  giving  the  law]  it  might  appear  sin  [inasmuch  as  it 
(sin)]  worked  death  in  me  by  that  which  is  good.''  How 
desperate  the  disease  that  only  grows  worse  under  the  appro- 
priate remedy  to  heal  it !  But  God  had  an  additional  purpose 
in  giving  the  holy  law  to  sinful  man,  viz.,  "that  [in  order  that] 
sin  by  the  commandment  might  become  exceeding  sinful." 
The  coward  is  not  known  until  he  hears  the  command  to 
march  against  the  foe. 

Paul,  having  now  shown  that  the  law  was  added  "  that  the 
offense  might  abound"  (v.  20),^ takes- up  with  this  fourteenth 
verse  the  third  point  (3)  above  in  the  chapter,  ^hat  salvation 
is  impossible  under  the  law,  because  it  cannot  deliver  from  the 
flesh  (iii.  20).  The  law  cannot  give  holiness,  for  the  flesh  is 
the  seat  of  sin. 

Two  questions  always  confront  the  student  on  this  passage : 
{a)  Is  this  Paul's  own  experience?  In  the  word  "I,"  which 
was  introduced  at  verse  7,  does  he  contemplate  no  one  but 


132  THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS        (Vll.  13) 

himself?  The  section  is  certainly  autobiographic.  Such  a 
picture  of  the  experience  and  despair  of  the  heart  in  its  contest 
with  sin  could  not  possibly  be  drawn  but  by  one  who  had  had 
the  contest.  It  is  because  sin  and  law  in  their  essence  and 
power  are  learned  only  by  experience  that  he  now  reasons  from 
the  latter.    The  law  is  not  learned  by  hearing  it ;  it  must  "  come." 

But,  while  this  must  be  a  page  from  Paul's  own  history,  it 
is  written  in  a  way  to  be  typical.  He  speaks  not  only  for 
himself,  but  voices  the  agony  of  every  man  situated  similarly. 
He  has  already  more  than  once  put  his  argument  into  dialogue 
form  and  introduced  the  words  "I"  and  "you"  (see  ii.  i, 
17  ff;  iii.  7)  with  general  and  all-inclusive  reference. 

{b)  The  other  question  is  much  more  serious:  Do  verses 
14-25  depict  the  experience  of  a  regenerate  or  an  unregen- 
erate  man?  Is  this  a  normal  Christian  experience  or  a 
sinner's  experience?  The  great  names  are  found  on  both 
sides;  for  the  former,  Augustine,  Luther,  Calvin,  Beza,  etc., 
and  for  the  latter,  Meyer,  Godet,  Stuart,  Tholuck,  etc. 

The  first  party  claims,  and  with  no  httle  weight,  that  none 
but  a  regenerate  man  would  make  such  a  struggle  against  sin ; 
that  only  such  a  one  could  say,  "  I  dehght  in  the  law  of  God  " 
(but  see  ii.  17,  23);  and  that  Gal.  v.  17  gives  in  brief  the 
contest  between  the  flesh  and  the  Spirit  in  the  Christian,  a 
contest  like  this  detailed  in  the  section  before  us.  (But  beware 
of  the  King  James  translation  of  Gal.  v.  17.) 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  said,  how  can  this  be  Paul's  ex- 
perience as  a  Christian,  when  he  begins  with  the  confession 
that  he  is  "sold  under  sin";  when,  after  denying  that  the 
justified  man  "continues"  in  sin  (vi.  i,  2),  he  admits  that  it 
holds  him  in  its  unbroken  power ;  when,  after  proclaiming  his 
freedom  from  law,  and  so  from  the  "passions"  of  sins  (vii.  5, 
6  ;  vi.  1 8),  he  now  sadly  confesses  himself  their  slave,  incapable 
of  doing  one  single  good  act?  He  "  delights  "  in  the  law,  but 
is  in  "  captivity  "  to  sin. 


(VII.  14)  THE  LAW  CANNOT  SANCTIFY  133 

This  division  of  interpretation  ought  to  have  suggested  long 
ago  that  the  understanding  of  this  passage  does  not  turn  on 
the  question  of  regeneracy  or  unregeneracy.  An  undivided 
decision  in  favor  of  one  or  the  other  would  not  shed  a  ray  of 
light  on  the  interpretation ;  it  would  estop  interpretation  by 
turning  the  course  of  argument  away  from  its  connection. 
For  who  is  the  man  in  this  picture?  A  man  under  law;  one 
who  has  discovered  its  heart-searching  spirituality,  but  who  in 
every  attempt  to  keep  it  finds  himself  defeated  by  indwelling 
sin ;  one  who  says,  "  How  beautiful  to  have  no  desires,  to  let 
God  desire  for  me!"  but  finding  at  every  turn  that  he  wants 
everything  in  sight.  Now  this  will  be  the  experience  of  any 
man,  regenerate  or  unregenerate,  that  attempts  to  keep  the 
law.  It  might  have  been  the  experience  of  the  sincere  ruler 
(Mark  x.  17-21),  whom  Jesus  "loved."  He  came  running 
and  kneeled  in  his  eager  inquiry  to  know  what  to  do.  It 
might  have  been  the  experience  of  Paul  during  some  part  of 
his  stay  in  Arabia  (Gal.  i.  17,  18),  until  he  had  wrought  out  in 
his  heart  and  mind  what  the  Christ  in  whom  he  had  believed 
was  to  his  soul.  For,  while  this  section  is  as  unlike  a  normal 
Christian  experience  as  early  dawn  is  unlike  broad  daylight, 
there  is  no  doubt  that  many  Christians  have  it  and  have  had 
it.  The  normal  experience  is  given  in  vi.  17,  18;  in  vii.  4,  6  ; 
and  especially  in  viii.  i,  2,  and  i  Peter  i.  8,  9.  The  section 
before  us,  with  its  Laocoon  contest,  is  the  painful  portrait  of 
a  man  in  deadly  earnest  to  be  just  before  God  without  Christ, 
either  not  knowing  him  at  all  or  knowing  him  without  under- 
standing the  gospel.  (See  Gal.  iv.  9.)  In  Paul's  day  many 
sincere  Jews,  with  reverence  for  their  holy  law,  may  have  seen 
in  this  passage  a  picture  of  that  agony  with  which  their  own 
hearts  had  once  ached. 

J4.  "The  law  is  spiritual:  ...  I  am  carnal."  This  verse 
is  a  proof  of  the  last  statement,  that  not  the  law,  but  sin,  proved 
death  to  him.     As  a  natural  law  pertains  alone  to  nature,  as 


134  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS        (VII.  14) 

a  mental  law  has  no  field  but  the  intellect,  so  a  spiritual  law 
belongs  only  to  the  realm  of  spirit  and  can  be  kept  only  by 
holy  beings.  Between  the  law  and  one  who  is  carnal  there  is 
a  lack  of  moral  adjustment.  Peter,  in  his  attempt  to  walk  on 
the  water,  began  to  sink,  because  he  was  out  of  the  sphere 
suited  to  mere  doubting  man.  The  priest  could  not  carry  the 
sacrificial  coals  in  his  hand  in  going  from  the  altar  into  the 
holy  place,  and  no  more  can  a  carnal  man  come  before  God 
carrying  the  fiery  law  in  his  heart ;  it  would  slay  him. 

If  with  this  verse  Paul  drops  the  past  tense  for  the  present, 
it  is  not  at  all  because  he  is  giving  his  own  condition  at  the 
time  of  writing.  The  change  occurs  in  the  verse  before  he  re- 
sorts to  the  first  person  and  while  he  is  still  speaking  of  the  law. 
In  verses  7-13  he  expanded  verse  5  above,  showing  in  detail 
the  operation  of  the  law  on  the  Romans,  once  under  it,  but 
not  when  he  wrote  (verse  6) ;  hence  the  past  tense.  In  this 
verse  he  speaks  not  of  the  operation,  but  of  the  permanent 
character  of  the  law,  which  requires  the  present  tense ;  and  he 
continues  with  this  tense  to  show  what  is  always  true  of  the 
"  flesh  "  under  law. 

The  "  carnal "  man  is  not  only  the  man  out  of  Christ  (see 
verse  5  above),  but  also  one  presumably  in  him,  but  ignorant 
of  grace  (cf.  i  Cor.  iii.  3  with  23).  The  condition  of  all  such  is 
given  in  the  words  "  sold  under  sin,"  language  borrowed  from 
the  slave  market. 

This  little  phrase,  in  which  sin  is  personified,  is  the  proposi- 
tion whose  proof  follows  to  the  end  of  the  chapter.  The  un- 
happy slave  chants  his  misery  with  monotonous  repetition  of 
the  one  idea— he  would  do  good,  but  he  cannot.  The  proof 
falls  into  three  dirges,  the  last  of  which  ends  in  the  high  key 
of  a  wail.  The  first  dirge  is  verses  15-17  ;  the  second,  verses 
18-20  ;  the  third,  verses  21-24.  The  last  verse  (25)  sums  all 
up.  These  three  all  go  to  show  one  who  is  a  slave  sold  under 
sin. 


(VII.  15-20)      THE  LAW  CANNOT  SANCTIFY  135 

t5-i7*  The  "for"  with  which  this  complaint  begins  intro- 
duces it  as  a  proof  of  the  proposition,  "sold  under  sin." 
What  the  man  does  he  knows  ("  allow  "  is  incorrect)  not.  He 
is  driven  blindly.  He  hates  what  he  does  and  does  what  he 
hates.  This  very  conduct  shows  on  both  its  sides  that  he 
"  consents  to  the  law  that  it  is  good."  His  failure,  then,  to 
lead  a  good  life  cannot  be  ascribed  to  his  wrong  attitude  to- 
ward the  law ;  that  failure  must  be  ascribed  to  indwelling  sin. 
The  "  I  "  is  just  himself,  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  that  have  been 
seized  upon  by  the  alien  master  which  he  calls  sin.  Note  that 
he  does  not  yet  hate  his  master ;  he  does  not  know  him ;  he 
only  hates  his  service. 

J8-20.  This  dirge  does  not  advance  the  argument  one  step. 
It  comes  to  the  same  conclusion  as  the  last  one  and  in  the  same 
terms — "  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me."  But,  while  it  does  not  ad- 
vance, it  emphasizes  by  becoming  more  specific.  There  he 
introduced  the  metaphor  of  a  house :  "  sin  dwells  in  me."  He 
now  shows  that  sin  occupies  every  room  in  the  whole  abode : 
"  there  does  not  dwell  in  me  a  good  thing."  Sin  lodges  in 
every  chamber  from  the  cellar  to  the  roof.  The  law  is  doing 
its  work,  "  for  by  the  law  is  the  [full]  knowledge  of  sin  "  (iii. 
20).  He  thought  there  was  some  dust  in  the  house,  but  now 
as  the  white  sunlight  streams  in  at  the  windows  he  sees  the 
winged  motes  everywhere,  saturating  the  air,  settling  on  the 
floor,  defacing  the  furniture,  and  every  motion  he  makes  only 
sets  them  flying.  It  is  worse.  For  when  he  begins  to  beat 
around  to  make  things  clean,  it  is  as  when  Aaron  smote  the 
dust  in  Egypt :  it  turned  to  Hce  (Exod.  viii.  16),  and  his  house 
is  possessed  by  them. 

In  a  second  point  he  is  more  specific  than  in  the  first  dirge. 
There  he  said  in  general  terms,  "  what  I  would  "  and  "what  I 
hate."  Here  he  says  "  the  good  that  I  would  "  and  "  the  evil 
that  I  would  not."  The  first  did  not  show  that  it  was  good 
that  he  could  not  do  and  evil  that  he  could  not  shun. 


136  THE  EPISTLE  TO   THE  ROMANS    (VII.  21-24) 

The  section  begins  with  "  for,"  leaning  on  the  statement  that 
had  just  been  made— "sin  that  dwelleth  in  me."  "For"  is 
"  explanatory  rather  than  demonstrative  "  (Godet).  The  phrase 
"  that  is,  in  my  flesh,"  following  "  in  me,"  is  not  restrictive ;  it 
is  appositional,  serving  to  define  the  words  "  in  me  "  and  to 
point  out  precisely  what  is  meant  by  them.  Every  psycho- 
logical exposition  of  this  passage  is  wrong.  To  parcel  out  the 
soul  of  this  man,  and  say  some  part  consents  to  the  law  and 
some  other  part  commits  sin,  is  to  deny  the  principal  proposi- 
tion (verse  14)  and  every  verse  that  follows.  And  this  the 
psychological  interpreters  show  by  virtually  saying  that  Paul 
must  not  be  understood  at  what  he  says:  "/am  carnal."  It 
is  just  one  and  the  same  "  I  "  that  is  "  carnal,"  that  does  "  what 
he  allows  not,"  that  "  hates  what  he  does,"  that  "  consents  unto 
the  law  that  it  is  good."  It  is  precisely  of  his  whole  self  that 
he  says  " sin  dwells  in  7ne''  The  carnal  "  I,"  thrilled  by  the 
electric  touch  of  the  law,  can  consent  to  that  law,  can  wish  to 
do  the  good,  can  hate  the  evil  condemned  by  the  law,  can 
"  wish  "  and  "  hate  "  and  "  consent,"  yet  never  cease  practising 
sin.  The  very  proof  that  he  gives  that  sin  dwells  in  him  is, 
"for  to  will  [wish]  is  present  with  me,  but  how  to  perform 
that  which  is  good  I  find  not."  It  is  a  carnal  wish,  for  a 
spiritual  wsh  is  a  spiritual  deed  (2  Cor.  viii.  10,  R.  V.).  That 
a  carnal  man,  as  the  one  in  this  section  is  declared  to  be, 
could  have  a  spiritual  wish  or  a  spiritual  consent  to  the  law  is 
a  contradiction  in  terms.  There  can  be  no  wish  contrary  to 
character. 

2J-24»  The  metaphor  of  a  house  is  now  dropped,  and  in 
plain  terms  he  repeats  what  was  said  in  the  two  preceding 
dirges,  but  in  the  form  of  result— "  then."  "I  find  then  fin 
my  experience]  the  law  [the  unvarying  principle  (in  reference)], 
to  me  who  would  do  good,  that  evil  is  present  with  me  [to  de- 
feat the  effort  at  good]."  That  "law"  does  not  mean  the 
Mosaic  law  in  this  passage  is  the  opinion  of  Alford,  Godet, 


(VII.  21-24)      THE  LAW  CANNOT  SANCTIFY  137 

Sanday,  and  many  others.     (For  the  meaning  assigned  above 
see  viii.  2,  "  law  of  the  Spirit.") 

Verses  22  and  23,  introduced  by  "for,"  unfold  what  Paul 
means  by  verse  21.  He  delights  in  (with)  the  law— Moses'  law 
here,  for  he  calls  it  the  "  law  of  God."  He  can  "  approve  "  it 
as  a  Jew,  being  "instructed"  by  it  (ii.  18).  This  dehght  is 
not  in  that  which  is  outward  in  doing  it,  but  in  the  "inward 
man,"  in  his  "wish,"  in  his  "  consent,"  in  his  "hate  "  of  what 
the  law  condemns.  A  proof  of  his  delight  in  the  law  is  his 
persistent  effort  to  keep  it  in  spite  of  constant  failure.  The 
inner  man  is  not  the  new  man  (Eph.  ii.  10  ;  iv.  24).  But  along 
with  this  delight  he  has  an  opposite  experience ;  he  sees  "  an- 
other," a  different  law,  a  force  in  his  members,  his  various 
capacities,  a  force  that  does  not  fight  a  battle  merely,  but  car- 
ries on  a  successful  campaign  against  the  law  of  his  mind. 
The  "  law  of  the  mind  "  means  the  dehght  of  the  inward  man 
in  God's  law.  This  campaign  is  successful  against  him,  be- 
cause it  leaves  him  in  captivity  to  the  "  law  [power]  of  sin  in 
his  members,"  a  phrase  defining  what  he  had  just  called  "  an- 
other law."  The  argument  has  now  come  around  to  the  point 
from  which  it  started.  What  he  deplores  here  is  not  his  wrong- 
doing, but  his  slavery—"  sold  under  sin  "  (verse  14).  His  pain 
is  not  the  path  of  wickedness  which  he  pursues,  but  in  the 
chain  that  drags  him  along  that  destructive  way— a  chain  that 
he  cannot  break.  His  sin  is  not  an  act ;  it  is  helpless  subjec- 
tion to  the  law  of  sin  in  his  members.  How  can  this  be  called 
a  normal  Christian  experience?  It  is  a  legal  experience,  writ- 
ten to  show  that,  whatever  else  the  law  can  do,  it  can  deliver 
no  man,  saint  or  sinner,  from  the  flesh.  Ye  are  "  delivered 
from  the  law"  by  "being  dead''  (in  Christ)  to  that  in  which 
ye  "  were  held  "  (verse  6).  It  sometimes  happens  that  a  man 
long  addicted  to  intoxicants  wakes  up  to  some  appreciation  of 
his  degradation  and  of  the  ruin  not  far  ahead  of  him  in  his 
course.    In  sober  moments  he  reflects  on  the  purity  and  hberty 


138  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS         (VII.  25) 

of  the  days  before  he  touched  the  bowl,  and  he  resolves  to  drink 
no  more ;  but  under  the  fierce  clamor  of  his  appetite  his  wish 
to  do  good  breaks  down.  He  resolves  again,  and  again  fails, 
and  again  and  again.  In  this  state  he  could  read  this  section 
and  make  every  word  his  own.  To  wish  the  good  and  at  the 
same  time  to  do  the  evil  is  not  a  normal  condition.  The  strug- 
ghng  drunkard's  case  is  a  mild  one  compared  with  that  of  the 
awakened  man  under  the  law.  The  drunkard  finds  a  master 
in  one  member,  his  appetite  for  drink ;  the  man  under  God's 
law  finds  a  master  in  every  member.  The  drunkard  does  some- 
times succeed  in  breaking  his  hateful  bonds ;  the  man  stand- 
ing under  frowning  Sinai  never  does.  Christ  must  unshackle 
him. 

This  divided  state,  yearning  to  do  good,  but  learning  finally 
that  the  good  is  beyond  his  reach,  wrings  out  the  cry  for  de- 
liverance from  his  wretchedness.  This  is  the  point  to  which 
Paul  has  been  leading  the  argument.  Experience  shows  that 
the  law  leaves  a  man,  no  matter  how  earnest  to  keep  it,  in  a 
state  of  miserable  slavery. 

"  The  body  of  this  death."  Moule's  statement  that  "  this  is 
that  part  of  the  regenerate  man  which  yet  has  to  die  "  shows 
to  what  limits  even  an  otherwise  fair  exegete  can  be  driven  by 
a  false  assumption.  His  is  that  the  man  in  this  picture  is  re- 
generate. Why,  the  very  next  word  declares  that  deliverance 
from  the  "  body  of  death  "  comes  not  with  physical  death,  but 
"  through  Jesus  Christ."  The  "  body  of  death  "  is  just  the  man 
himself,  the  same  that  was  mentioned  in  vi.  6.  By  using  the 
word  "  body  "  Paul  indicates  what  he  has  all  along  said,  that 
he  was  wholly  sinful.  His  cry  virtually  is,  "  Who  shall  deliver 
me  from  myself?  "  He  calls  it  "  the  body  of  this  death,"  be- 
cause it  belongs  to  death  and  is  under  its  power  in  being  under 
the  power  of  sin.     Sin  and  death  always  go  together. 

25^  "  I  thank  God  [that  deliverance  comes]  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord."     This  sentence  is  brief  and  not  complete  in 


(VII.  25)  THE  LAW  CANNOT  SANCTIFY  139 

itself,  because  the  method  of  the  deliverance  was  fully  described 
by  Paul  in  verses  i-6  at  the  beginning  of  the  chapter. 

"So  then  ...  I  myself,"  etc.  These  two  antithetical 
propositions  sum  up  all  that  has  been  said  above — "a  terse, 
compressed  summary  of  the  previous  paragraph,  verses  7-24, 
describing  in  two  strokes  the  state  of  things  prior  to  the  inter- 
vention of  Christ."  There  is  a  similar  condensation  in  i.  32. 
"  I  myself,"  apart  from  Christ,  "  with  the  mind,"  that  "  wishes 
to  do  good  "  and  "  dehghts  in  the  law,"  thus  "  serve  "  it— 
"  serve  in  the  oldness  of  the  letter  "  (verse  6  above) ;  "  but  [I 
myself]  with  the  flesh  [the  enslaved  man]  [serve]  the  law  of 
sin  ["  in  my  members  "],"  (See  xv.  14,  where  the  same  words 
mean  "  apart  from  other  information.") 


CHAPTER   VIII 

IN    CHRIST    JESUS    A    GODLY    LIFE    IS    INSURED    BY    THE    HOLY 

SPIRIT 

GoDET,  in  his  introduction  to  this  chapter,  that  begins  with 
no  condemnation  and  ends  with  no  separation,  quotes  Spener 
as  saying,  "  If  Holy  Scripture  was  a  ring,  and  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  its  precious  stone,  chapter  viii.  would  be  the 
sparkhng  point  of  the  jewel."  It  takes  up  the  little  phrase  in 
chapter  vii.,  ** serve  in  newness  of  [the]  spirit,"  and  develops  it. 
The  opposite  service  mentioned  there,  "in  the  oldness  of  the 
letter,"  the  law,  is  the  theme  of  chapter  vii. 

This  chapter  is  the  counterpart  of  the  fifth.  The  fifth  shows 
that  justification  by  faith  in  Christ  is  once  and  forever— it  is 
permanent;  here  we  have  the  same  thing— a  godly  life,  the 
fruit  of  justification,  is  insured.  There  the  argument  for  per- 
manence of  justification  is  based  on  its  ground,  the  love  of 
God  in  Christ  Jesus;  here  it  is  based  on  the  power  of  the 
Spirit  in  Christ  Jesus.  There  the  justified  man  was  looked  at 
only  in  his  relation  to  God ;  here  he  is  also  considered  in  the 
midst  of  his  conflict  with  the  flesh  and  the  world,  over  which 
he  triumphs  by  the  aid  of  the  Spirit.  Hence  some  points  just 
touched  on  there  are  developed  here.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  only 
once  mentioned  there  (v.  5),  said  to  be  given,  but  nothing 
more  ;  here  his  ofiice  is  completely  unfolded.  Two  short  verses 
there  (3,  4)  speak  of  *'  tribulations  " ;  here  they  occupy  attea- 

140 


(VIII.  I,  2)  THE   SPIRIT  OF  LIFE  141 

tion  almost  wholly  from  verse  1 7  to  the  end.  There  the  con- 
clusion is  briefly  given — "Grace  reigns  through  righteousness 
unto  eternal  life ;  "  here  it  is  presented  at  length  in  a  most 
powerful  and  poetic  strain  (verses  31-39). 

There  are  four  topics  in  the  chapter :  ( i )  deHverance  from 
the  flesh  by  the  power  of  the  Spirit  (verses  i-ii);  (2)  realiza- 
tion of  sonship  by  the  same  Spirit  (verses  12-i'ja) ;  (3)  preser- 
vation in  sufferings  (verses  17/^-30);  (4)  a  paean  of  triumph 
(verses  31-39).  Furthermore,  the  chapter  brings  all  the  hues 
of  argument  together  and  shows  them  in  their  happy  issue  in 
salvation,  the  eternal  sequence  of  grace. 

t^  "There  is  therefore  now  no  condemnation."  The  con- 
nection by  the  word  "  therefore  "  is  with  the  first  clause  of  the 
preceding  verse,  and  through  it  with  that  to  which  the  clause 
refers.  "Now"— as  the  argument  at  present  stands.  The 
"  no  "  is  emphatic — no  condemnation  from  the  law,  and  none 
on  account  of  inherent  sinfulness;  none  from  any  source  or 
for  any  cause.  Those  who  make  the  "  now  "  temporal  miss 
the  shining  point  that  "no  condemnation"  means  none  possi- 
ble, none  forever.  This  happy  condition  belongs  only  to  those 
"  in  Christ  Jesus."  The  rest  of  the  verse  is  not  genuine  and 
is  omitted  by  all  modern  editors  of  the  text. 

2*  This  verse  tells  not  why,  but  how,  the  deHverance  came 
about.  It  gives  not  the  ground,  but  the  agent,  of  the  freedom. 
It  is  the  seventh  chapter  condensed  to  one  sentence.  When 
a  man  by  faith  comes  into  Christ  Jesus  he  finds  there  the 
Spirit's  law  or  controlling  force  effecting  life  in  the  soul.  This 
law  is  neither  the  moral  nor  the  Mosaic  law ;  it  is  not  the  "  law 
of  the  mind,"  not  the  "law  of  faith  "  (iii.  27),  but  the  operative 
force  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  whose  presence  awakens  spiritual  life 
and  sustains  it.  He  that  has  the  Son  has  life  (i  John  v.  12), 
because  in  the  Son  he  finds  the  life-giving  Spirit.  By  faith  in 
Christ  a  man  finds  not  only  acquittal  from  sins,  but  also  the 
power  by  which  he  no  longer  commits  them ;  for  this  law  of 


142  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS    (VIII.  3,  4) 

the  Spirit  sets  him  at  hberty  ("  free  ")  from  the  "  law  of  sin  and 
death,"  fully  described  in  verse  23  above  as  an  enslaving  force 
in  his  members.  The  spiritual  law  is  set  against  the  carnal  and 
overcomes  it.  The  law  of  gravity  ever  keeps  the  serpent 
crawling  on  the  earth,  and  he  cannot  rise  above  it;  but  give 
him  wings  and  now  he  has  a  power  superior  to  gravity  by 
which  he  can  fly.  A  man  cannot  rise  above  the  clouds ;  his 
own  dead  weight  holds  him  down  until  he  steps  "  in  "  the  car 
suspended  beneath  the  balloon  and  cuts  loose,  when  he  finds 
another  force  dominating  the  force  of  gravity  and  carrying 
him  aloft  in  spite  of  it.  "  In  Christ  Jesus  "  there  is  a  power 
that  sets  one  at  liberty  from  the  sinful  force  in  his  members. 
Gravity  never  ceases,  but  it  may  be  overcome.  The  law  of 
sin  in  the  members  exists  as  long  as  they  do,  but  *'  in  Christ "  it 
cannot  operate. 

3,  4»  These  two  verses  tell,  first,  how  it  comes  to  pass  that 
the  man  in  Christ  Jesus  is  "  free  from  the  law  of  sin  "  in  his 
members,  and,  secondly,  why.  The  "law  [of  Moses]  could 
not "  condemn  sin  in  the  flesh,  because  it  was  weaker  than  the 
flesh.  It  was  weak  through  the  flesh.  The  anchor  of  the  law 
was  strong  in  itself,  but  it  would  not  hold  in  the  mud  bottom 
of  the  heart.  It  could  and  did  condemn  the  acts  of  the  flesh 
and  punished  some  of  them  even  with  death,  but  the  sin  in 
the  flesh  it  could  not  condemn ;  it  only  excited  it  to  rebeUion. 
"  When  the  commandment  came,  sin  revived  "  (vii.  5,  9).  To 
condemn  is  to  pronounce  sentence  against  and  to  inflict  due 
penalty.  Christ  died  not  only  for  acts  of  sin,  but  for  sinners, 
sin  in  the  heart.  (For  the  former  see  iii.  23-26;  iv.  25  ;  for 
the  latter,  vi.  6-10.)  If  "he  that  is  dead  is  justified  from  sin," 
it  is  because  the  sinfulness  in  him  was  condemned  in  Christ. 
The  verses  before  us  are  the  counterpart  of  vi.  6-10. 

"  God  sending  his  own  Son  in  the  hkeness  of  sinful  flesh." 
Here  is  both  the  deity  and  the  humanity  of  Christ  (i  Tim.  iii. 
16).     He  is  called  his  "own"  Son  to  distinguish  him  from 


(VIII.  3,  4)  THE  SPIRIT  OF  LIFE  143 

others  (verse  i6  below),  and  he  was  such  before  he  was  "  sent." 
He  did  not  come  in  the  likeness  of  flesh,  or  he  would  have 
been  no  proper  man,  and  he  did  not  come  in  sinful  flesh,  or 
he  would  have  been  a  sinner ;  but  he  came  "  in  the  likeness  of 
sinful  flesh."  He  was  neither  a  phantom  nor  a  sinner,  but  a 
perfect  man.  He  must  be  such  a  man,  that  God  might  con- 
demn sin  in  the  flesh. 

God  sent  him  (an  oiTering)  "for  sin."  Godet's  "wholly 
different  explanation,"  denying  that  Paul  had  the  "condem- 
nation on  the  cross  "  in  view,  is  unscriptural.  In  leaving  out 
the  cross  Godet  has  left  out  the  gospel.  The  phrase  "  for  sin," 
equivalent  to  "  concerning  "  or  "  about  sin,"  is  all-comprehen- 
sive. He  was  sent  not  merely  about  the  guilt  of  sin,  but  about 
its  existence  as  well.  He  came  not  only  to  condemn  its  guilt, 
but  its  presence  in  the  heart  even  when  passive.  If  the  cross 
is  not  mentioned,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the  sending  and  the 
manner  of  it  ("  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh  ")  are  made  prom- 
inent, this  is  just  to  confine  our  attention  to  that  on  which  the 
condemnation  fell.  The  cross  is  plainly  implied  in  the  word 
"  condemn."  Christ  stood  for  men  in  his  person  in  the  flesh, 
and  so  the  condemnation  which  fell  on  his  flesh  is  equally 
theirs  who  are  in  him.  And  therefore  the  text  does  not  say 
"  his,"  because  it  is  theirs  also.  Had  he  not  been  sinless,  he 
could  have  been  condemned,  to  be  sure,  but  he  could  not  have 
risen  again  so  that  men  might  come  to  be  in  him.  And  "  there 
is  therefore  now  no  condemnation  to  them  that  are  in  Christ 
Jesus,"  because  their  sinfulness  was  condemned  in  him  to- 
gether with  their  sins. 

God's  purpose  in  thus  sending  his  Son  was  that  the  "  right- 
eousness "  demanded  by  the  law,  viz.,  a  holy  heart,  might  be 
"  fulfilled  in  [not  "  by  "]  us,  who  walk  not  after  [in  accordance 
with  the  promptings  of]  the  flesh,  but  after  [the  promptings  of] 
the  spirit."  To  "  walk  "  means  to  live  and  act.  The  last  two 
phrases,  beginning  with  "  who  walk,"  do  not  tell  why  or  on 


144  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS    (VIII.  5-7) 

what  ground  the  righteousness  of  the  law  is  fulfilled  in  believers, 
but  who  are  such.  They  give  a  description  and  not  a  reason. 
Those  who  are  in  Christ  find  there  the  Spirit,  that  not  only 
begets  a  new  life,  but  gives  direction  to  its  impulses.  The  third 
verse  gives  the  ground  of  regeneration;  the  fourth,  its  real- 
ization. 

Why  did  not  Paul,  instead  of  the  phrase,  "who  walk  not 
after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  spirit,"  say  "who  beheve  "?  For 
believing  involves  such  a  walk  and  is  not  genuine  unless  it  ex- 
hibits such  a  walk.  The  answer  is  that  he  has  the  regulating 
method  of  the  Mosaic  law  to  combat,  and  he  wishes  to  show  that 
believing  contains  a  real  and  effective  energy  for  life  which  is 
not  in  the  law— a  walk  in  the  spirit. 

5-8^  This  brief  section  shows  the  contrast  between  the  man 
described  in  vii.  14-25  and  the  man  "in  Christ."  The  fifth 
verse  in  its  first  sentence  shows  why  the  righteousness  of  the 
law  is  not  produced  in  the  man  not  in  Christ,  that  is,  in  the 
man  who  walks  after  the  flesh  and  so  under  law :  he  "  minds 
[hkes,  cares  for,  aspires  after]  the  things  of  the  flesh."  Even 
his  religious  notions  spring  from  his  own  unregenerate  con- 
ceptions. On  the  other  hand,  "  they  that  are  after  [according 
to]  the  spirit  [mind  (care  for,  like)]  the  things  of  the  spirit." 
"  They  that  are."  The  "  are  "  asserts  their  character.  They 
that  are  after  the  flesh  are  natural,  carnal  men  (John  iii.  3,  6). 

6,  This  verse  gives  the  nature  of  the  carnal  mind  as  the 
reason  why  it  cares  only  for  the  things  of  the  flesh.  "  To  be 
carnally  minded  is  death."  Death  is  absence  of  life  and  of 
all  power  to  do  the  things  belonging  to  life.  On  the  other 
hand,  "  to  be  spiritually  minded  [as  he  is  who  is  in  Christ]  is 
life  and  peace."  Such  a  one  is  endowed  with  the  life  and 
peace  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  can  attend  to  the  Spirit's  things. 

7.  The  first  sentence  defines  the  "  death  "  of  the  last  verse. 
It  is  "  enmity  against  God."  In  the  seventh  chapter  the  inabil- 
ity to  do  God's  will,  the  death,  was  merely  bewailed ;  here  its 


(VIII.  8,  9)  THE  SPIRIT  OF  LIFE  145 

moral  character  is  given— it  is  guilt.  As  surely  as  God  is  love, 
so  surely  the  natural  dislike  to  follow  him  is  hostility  and 
hatred. 

The  natural  mind  is  enmity  to  God,  because  it  does  not 
subject  itself  to  his  law ;  it  is  in  a  state  of  rebellion.  The  brief 
sentence,  "  neither  indeed  can  be,"  is  a  diluted  translation, 
lacking  the  climactic  force  of  the  original,  which  contains 
another  "for."  The  carnal  mind  does  not  subject  itself  to 
the  law  of  God,  for,  indeed,  it  cannot.  Here  is  vii.  14-25 
in  a  nutshell.  Paul  says  there,  "  I  am  carnal,  sold  under 
sin,"  and  I  cannot  do  the  things  that  I  delight  in,  contained  in 
the  law.  But  an  additional  fact  must  now  be  given  that  this 
inability  is  an  impotency  of  enmity  and  guilt.  A  man  may  not 
be  conscious  of  a  feeling  of  enmity ;  he  may  even  claim  to 
love  God ;  but  the  very  fiber  of  the  man  out  of  Christ  is  here 
declared  to  be  in  opposition  to  him.  (See  on  v.  6,  "  without 
strength.") 

8.  "  So  then."  Another  fault  in  the  King  James  version  ; 
it  ought  to  be  simply  "  and."  This  eighth  verse  is  not  a  logical 
conclusion,  but  a  solemn  assertion  :  "  And  they  that  are  in  the 
flesh  [not  in  Christ]  cannot  please  God."  What  is  said  of  the 
carnal  mind,  that  it  is  impotent  for  good,  is  now  asserted  of 
all  the  unregenerate.  Out  of  Christ,  a  man  may  be  religious 
and  serve  in  "  the  oldness  of  the  letter,"  but  he  neither  pleases 
God  nor  is  he  God's  friend. 

This  section  (verses  5-8),  then,  gives  a  very  substantial  rea- 
son, in  the  character  of  the  unrenewed  or  carnal  mind,  why 
only  those  who  walk  after  the  spirit  (verse  4)  found  in  Christ 
(verse  2)  can  fulfil  the  righteousness  of  the  law.  It  shows  at 
the  same  time  that  being  in  the  flesh  and  being  under  law,  the 
two  states  occurring  together  as  they  do,  is  a  union  in  helpless 
guilt. 

9,  In  happy  contrast  with  those  who  "  cannot  please  God," 
because  they  are  in  the  flesh,  that  is,  under  its  power,  Paul  ad- 


146  THE  EPISTLE    TO   THE  ROMANS       (VIII.  lo) 

dresses  the  Romans  directly  to  assure  them  of  four  great  results 
from  the  possession  of  the  Spirit:  "not  in  the  flesh;"  Christ's 
own  (i.  6) ;  their  own  spirit  alive ;  certainty  of  the  future  life 
of  the  body.  "  Ye  [emphatic]  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in  [the 
control  of]  the  Spirit,  if  indeed  [no  doubt  expressed ;  it  is  on  the 
supposition  that]  the  Spirit  of  God  dwells  in  [makes  his  home 
with]  you."  The  supposition  is  that  the  Spirit  is  not  a  fitful 
influence,  but  an  abiding  guest  or,  rather,  host.  Note  how  he 
says,  ye  are  in  the  Spirit  if  the  Spirit  is  in  you. 

On  the  other  hand,  "  if  any  one  [how  delicately  he  avoids 
saying  "  ye  "  when  it  comes  to  this  painful  statement!  ]  has  not 
the  Spirit  of  Christ,"  he  does  not  belong  to  Christ.  The  Spirit 
of  God  and  the  Spirit  of  Christ  are  one  and  the  same  Holy 
Spirit.  None  but  the  reader  w^ho  neglects  the  logic  will  take 
the  phrase  "  Spirit  of  Christ "  for  the  temper  or  disposition  of 
Christ.     The  Spirit  proceeds  from  both  God  and  Christ. 

JO*  "And  if  Christ  be  in  you."  Here  are  three  different 
phrases  meaning  one  thing :  "  the  Spirit  of  God,"  "  the  Spirit 
of  Christ,"  and  "  Christ."  He  comes  from  God  the  Father 
(Acts  i.  4) ;  he  is  given  in  Christ  the  Son  (viii.  2) ;  and  does 
not  speak  of  himself  (John  xvi.  13),  but  manifests  "Christ" 
(John  xiv.  21).  The  threefold  mention  shows  the  work  of  the 
Trinity  in  the  sanctification  of  the  believer. 

When  Christ  dwells  in  a  man  "  the  body  is  dead  because  of 
sin."  Paul  does  not  say  "  flesh,"  because  he  means  the  literal 
body.  The  saints  are  subject  to  physical  death  and  die,  be- 
cause of  Adam's  sin  (v.  12).  But  the  spirit,  the  saint's  own 
personal  spirit,  is  not  ahve,  but  "  hfe."  It  has  the  hfe  of  Christ, 
because  of  his  righteousness  imparted  through  faith.  The 
righteousness  here  mentioned  is  comprehensive,  including  justi- 
fication and  sanctification.  He  says  the  spirit  is  "  life,"  but 
he  does  not  say  the  body  is  death,  for,  while  the  spirit  of  the 
man  in  Christ  is  already  redeemed  from  death,  his  body  in  due 
time,  at  Christ's  coming,  will  be. 


(VIII.  II-I3)  THE  SPIRIT  OF  LIFE  147 

n»  "Raised  up  Jesus,  .  .  .  raised  up  Christ."  The  in- 
dwelling of  "  the  Spirit  of  him  [God]  that  raised  up  Jesus  [the 
historic  person]  from  [among]  the  dead  "  is  a  pledge  that  he 
who  raised  up  Christ,  the  covenant  head,  will  also  make  ahve 
"  your  mortal  bodies."  He  was  raised  not  only  as  Jesus  the 
man,  but  as  Jesus  the  Christ,  who  stands  for  all  who  are  in 
him.  This  quickening  of  the  mortal  body  takes  place  either 
because  of  or  through  (the  reading  is  in  doubt)  the  Spirit  that 
dwells  in  you.  And  thus  the  Trinity  is  connected  with  the 
resurrection. 

This  closes  the  first  section  of  the  chapter— deHverance  from 
the  flesh  by  the  power  of  the  Spirit.  His  help  is  threefold :  he 
delivers  in  Christ  from  the  condemnation  of  the  flesh  (verses 
I,  2);  from  the  power  of  the  flesh  (verses  3-8);  the  whole 
man,  spirit  and  body,  from  the  power  of  death  (verses  9-1 1). 

It  is  now  plain  to  be  seen  that  the  elucidation  of  the  sixth 
chapter  by  the  objective  view  has  everything  in  its  favor.  To 
make  that  chapter  subjective  is  to  anticipate  this  section.  Paul 
takes  one  step  at  a  time.  There  he  gives  the  things  to  be  be- 
heved,  without  which  there  is  no  sanctification  ;  here  the  things 
to  be  experienced.  Until  faith  takes  Christ  for  the  Saviour 
from  the  flesh,  it  cannot  find  that  he  is  also  the  inward  sanc- 
tifier. 

\2y  13*  '(See  (2)  in  analysis  above.)  Some  (Moule,  Lipsius) 
would  join  these  two  verses  with  the  last  section  and  begin  the 
new  one  with  verse  14.  But  with  his  intention  to  speak  of 
sonship  Paul  wishes  to  show  that,  first  of  all,  it  is  realized  in  a 
right  hfe ;  and  so  Jesus  taught  (Matt.  v.  44,  45).  And  in  such 
a  life  is  found  the  best  starting-point  for  the  discussion— the 
best,  for  without  it  there  is  no  proof  of  the  lofty  relation  (i 
John  ii.  4). 

The  section  begins  as  a  deduction  ("  therefore  ")  from  verses 
9-1 1.  Because  the  Spirit  has  given  life  to  our  soul  and  will 
give  life  to  our  mortal  body,  therefore  "  we  are  debtors  not  to 


148  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS       (VIII.  14) 

the  flesh,"  which  could  not  bring  us  any  deHverance,  to  Hve 
after  it.  Mark  how  Paul  impHes  not  only  that  the  flesh  still 
exists,  but  also  that  there  is  danger  from  it.  He  discriminates. 
Our  only  obligation  is  not  to  hve  after  it ;  otherwise  we  may 
owe  it  much.  But  it  is  to  be  the  slave,  not  the  master.  In  the 
warfare  of  life  it  is  to  be  the  soldier,  sent  into  any  dangerous 
situation,  and  not  the  captain,  who  directs  the  siege.  If  this 
order  is  reversed,  if  a  man  yields  to  the  desires  of  his  heart 
and  follows  his  own  likes  and  dislikes,  "  if  ye  live  after  [ac- 
cording to]  the  flesh,"  ye  are  going  to  die.  The  flesh  belongs 
to  the  world,  and  the  man  who  is  yielding  to  its  promptings  is 
in  the  world,  hving  like  the  world,  and  must  perish  with  the 
world.  He  is  a  child  of  "  this  world  "  (Luke  xvi.  8),  but  not 
a  child  of  God  ;  he  is  not  living  like  his  only  Son  (i  John  ii,  6). 

On  the  other  hand,  "  if  ye  by  [not  "  through "]  the  Spirit 
put  to  death  the  deeds  of  the  body."  The  emphatic  words 
are  "by  the  Spirit."  His  presence  is  instant  death  to  the  evil 
deeds  of  the  body.  To  subdue  these  by  other  means  is  de- 
ceptive asceticism.  By  the  force  of  will  they  may  be  chained, 
but,  as  the  section  above  shows,  only  God's  Spirit  can  destroy 
them.  Obser^^e  he  does  not  say  destroy  the  flesh,  nor  destroy 
the  body,  but  the  deeds  of  the  body — its  aspirations,  impulses, 
desires,  and  works  (Gal.  v.  19-21).  To  destroy  the  body,  the 
seat  of  the  flesh,  would  be  to  destroy  one's  self.  Paul  uses  the 
word  "  body  "  here  as  objective  of  the  flesh.  (See  vi.  6  and 
Col.  iii.  5-9.)  The  flesh  is  one's  constant  and  most  intimate 
associate.  The  man  in  Christ  is  not  in  the  flesh,  but  it  is  in 
him,  and  the  problem  of  salvation  is  not  how  to  transmute  the 
flesh  into  something  good,  but  how  to  live  with  this  devilish 
thing  every  day  without  being  overcome  by  it.  The  presence 
of  the  Spirit  solves  the  problem.  "  If  ye  by  the  Spirit  put  to 
death  [at  one  stroke]  the  deeds  of  the  body,  ye  shall  live  " — 
live  the  hfe  of  sons. 

J4»  "  For."     The  sequence  appears  as  soon  as  it  is  noticed 


(VIII.  i5-i7«)  ^-^^^  SPIRIT  OF  IIFE  149 

that  putting  to  death  the  deeds  of  the  body  by  the  Spirit,  the 
theme  of  the  last  verse,  is  exactly  equivalent  to  being  "  led  by 
the  Spirit"  in  this  verse,  and  that  the  little  sentence  "ye  shall 
live  "  means  Hve  as  sons.  To  be  led  by  the  Spirit  is  to  put  to 
death  the  deeds  of  the  body,  and  to  be  a  son  in  consequence 
of  such  leading  is  to  live.     Life  by  the  Spirit  gives  sonship. 

J5»  After  having  argued  their  sonship  on  the  ground  of  their 
pious  walk  in  the  Spirit,  he  supports  the  argument  now  by  the 
testimony  of  their  experience.  They  are  sons,  "  for  "  they  did 
not,  on  becoming  followers  of  Christ,  receive  a  "  spirit  of  bond- 
age again  unto  [into  a  state  of]  fear"  (2  Tim.  i.  7).  "Spirit" 
in  this  verse  seems  to  mean  disposition  or  temper  (Num.  v.  14), 
such  as  men  had  under  the  law.  The  Romans  were  not  con- 
scious of  such  a  slavish  spirit,  for  on  becoming  followers  of 
Christ  they  received  a  "spirit  of  adoption,"  which  awakened 
the  feeling  of  sonship  and  by  which  they  "  cried  "  (out,  confi- 
dently, Gal.  iv.  6),  "  Abba,  Father,"  an  endearing  repetition  of 
words  used  by  Jesus  himself  (Mark  xiv.  36). 

J 6,  t7a»  The  Holy  Spirit  testifies  to  the  same  fact.  Note 
how  Paul  distinguishes  between  the  divine  Spirit  and  the  human 
in  which  he  dwells.  "  The  Spirit  himself  bears  witness  along 
with  our  spirit  [and  two  witnesses  establish  the  truth],  that  we 
are  children  of  God."  The  relation  of  the  human  and  the 
divine  cannot  be  explained  in  the  work  of  salvation,  but  they 
are  distinct,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  destroys  neither  the  volition 
nor  the  personality  of  the  human. 

For  the  word  "  sons  "  in  verse  14  Paul  now  uses  the  tenderer 
term  "  children,"  begotten  ones,  which  goes  to  show  that  the 
word  "  adoption  "  is  not  to  be  pressed.  They  are  not  merely 
legally  adopted,  but  really  born  sons  (i  John  v.  i),  spiritually 
begotten.  They  have  all  the  rights  and  prospects  of  children  : 
"if  [since]  children,  then  heirs;"  and  not  heirs  to  a  lesser,  but 
to  an  equal  ("joint  heirs  "  gives  point  to  the  assertion)  portion 
with  Christ,  the  first-born.     They  do  not  inherit  a  secondary 


150  THE  EPISTLE  TO   THE  ROMANS  (VIII.  17^,  18) 

share,  not  a  share  through  him,  but  with  him.  "  Thou  hast 
loved  them  as  thou  hast  loved  me  "  (John  xvii.  23).  (See  also 
Matt.  xix.  28;  I  Cor.  vi.  2,  3;  Col.  iii.  4;  Rev.  iii.  21.) 

This  second  section  of  the  chapter  teaches  then,  first,  that 
the  Spirit,  who  puts  to  death  the  deeds  of  the  body,  gives  life 
to  the  man ;  secondly,  that  this  life  is  the  life  of  sonship ;  and, 
thirdly,  that  this  sonship  involves  the  fullest  meaning  of  the 
word,  assuring  an  equal  inheritance  with  Christ. 

J7b»  Paul  turns  abruptly  to  the  subject  of  suffering.  (See 
(3)  in  analysis  above.)  And  yet  not  so  abruptly,  for  the  suf- 
fering of  real  Christians  at  all  times  is,  and  especially  at  that 
time  was,  a  constant  daily  experience.  We  are  joint  heirs  with 
Christ  "  if  [since,  as  the  fact  is]  indeed  we  suffer  with  him  "  in 
order  to  share  his  glory.  This  suffering  is  not  penal  and  not 
in  the  contest  with  our  own  flesh,  but  comes  to  his  followers 
because,  like  him,  they  live  in  opposition  to  the  world  that 
hates  them  (i  John  iii.  13),  and,  like  him,  reprove  the  world's 
works  (John  vii.  7).  To  suffer  like  him  is  to  suffer  with  him, 
for  he  makes  his  followers'  pains  his  own  (Acts  ix.  4,  5).  It 
is  almost  an  axiom  of  the  gospel  that  the  path  to  glory  is  the 
path  of  pain  (Mark  x.  38 ;  Phil.  ii.  9).  Therefore  the  intelH- 
gent  behever  does  not  hesitate  to  undergo  sorrow  in  his  service 
to  Christ ;  he  rather  covets  it  in  order  that  he  may  be  glorified 
with  him;  for  the  joint  heirs  are  those  who  suffer  that  they 
may  be  glorified.  Suffering  is  the  seed  that  ripens  in  fruit  of 
glory. 

The  discussion  of  this  topic  is  concerned  with  that  which 
gives  sustaining  power  and  comfort  in  suffering.  The  points 
are  three :  {a)  the  vastness  of  the  future  glory,  an  expansion 
of  v.  3,  4  (verses  18-25) ;  {b)  the  Holy  Spirit's  aid  (verses  26, 
27) ;  and  {c)  God's  general  control  of  all  things  to  bring  about 
his  people's  ultimate  good  (verses  28-30). 

18*  Paul  had  weighed  the  sufferings  of  the  present  time 
against  the  future  glory.     This  verse  gives  the  estimate— they 


(VIII.  19-21)  THE  SPIRIT  OF  LIFE  151 

are  not  worthy,  are  no  account  in  the  comparison.  In  them- 
selves the  present  tribulations  for  Christ  are  vast  and  painful 
(2  Cor.  xi.  23-28).  If  then  before  the  glory  they  are  nothing, 
what  must  the  glory  be?  (2  Cor.  iv.  17.)  It  is  not  "in  us," 
but  toward  us,  **  to  usward,"  for  Paul  is  contemplating  much 
more  than  that  which  affects  the  person  directly. 

J9»  So  vast  is  this  glory  that  the  very  (irrational)  creation, 
or  "  creature  "  (Isa.  xi. ;  2  Pet.  iii.  13),  is  awaiting  it  with  eager 
expectancy,  longing  for  the  "manifestation,"  the  unveihng,  of 
the  sons  (verse  14  above)  of  God  at  his  advent  (Col.  iii.  4). 

20^  2  U  As  God's  sons  look  with  longing  to  the  future,  first, 
because  their  present  condition  is  painful  and  is  not  the  ideal 
condition,  and,  secondly,  because  the  future  will  bring  them 
redemption,  just  so  the  creation,  personified  all  through  this 
passage,  looks  to  the  same  future,  first,  because  it  is  now  under 
the  curse,  and,  secondly,  in  the  future,  in  the  glorification  of 
the  faithful,  it  will  find  dehverance.  The  twentieth  verse  gives 
a  reason  for  the  "  earnest  expectation  "  drawn  from  the  present 
condition  of  creation,  and  the  next  verse  a  reason  (when  we 
read  "  because  ")  drawn  from  the  future.  "  Was  made  subject 
to  vanity  "  is  ambiguous.  Creation  was  not  made  so,  for  origi- 
nally creation  was  "  good,"  and  it  was  subjected  to  vanity,  that 
is,  to  attain  to  no  good  end  permanently.  Any  good  that  comes 
from  creation  must  be  evoked  by  man's  hard  toil.  This  con- 
dition did  not  come  about  by  its  own  will  ("  willingly  "),  but 
because  of  him  (God)  who  subjected  it  to  vanity,  not  finally, 
but  upon  a  basis  of  some  provision  for  the  future,  called  "hope." 
This  verse  clearly  implies  that  creation  ("  all  nature  ")  is  neither 
in  its  original  condition  nor  in  its  final  condition.  It  fell  when 
man  fell  (Gen.  iii.  17-19) ;  it  shall  be  restored  when  he  is,  and 
shall  be  no  longer  subject  to  vanity,  but  to  him  (Heb.  ii.  5-9). 
It  is  eagerly  awaiting  the  revelation  of  God's  sons,  because 
that  is  the  time  when  it  "also  shall  be  dehvered  from  the 
bondage  of  corruption  [the  subjection,  verse  20]  into  the  liberty 


152  THE  EPISTLE    TO  THE  ROMANS  (VIII.  22-25) 

of  the  glory  ["  glorious  liberty  "  is  wrong]  of  the  children  of 
God."  The  creation  is  promised  the  liberty  of  the  glory,  not 
the  glory. 

22^  This  verse  explains  the  ''  liberty  "  of  the  last  in  showing 
the  need  of  it  in  creation.  The  language  is  highly  poetic; 
creation  is  personified.  "  We  know,"  says  Paul,  from  obser- 
vation of  the  patent  fact,  "  that  the  whole  creation  groans  " 
together  in  all  its  parts,  and  travails  in  birth  pangs  to  bring 
forth  that  which  is  new  and  fair.  Cold  winds  moan  and 
earthquakes  shake.  "  All  the  voices  of  nature  are  in  the  minor 
key."     All  things  sigh  before  God,  as  Bonar  sang : 

"  Come  and  make  all  things  new; 
Build  up  this  ruined  earth ; 
Restore  our  faded  paradise, 
Creation's  second  birth." 

23»  This  verse  puts  the  sons  of  God  in  a  different  category 
from  creation.  "  They  "  in  italics  in  the  King  James  version 
should  be  "it,"  creation.  Not  only  creation,  "but  ourselves 
also,"  who,  even  though  we  have  the  first-fruits  of  salvation,  the 
Spirit,  "ourselves  groan  within  ourselves,  [because  or  while] 
waiting  for  the  adoption,  to  wit,  the  redemption  of  our  body." 
The  right  of  sons  believers  have  already  (see  verse  1 5  above),  but 
not  the  reahzation  ;  and  the  body  is  dead  because  of  sin.  The 
"  redemption  of  the  body  "  is  more  than  resurrection  and  more 
than  the  change  that  will  come  to  that  generation  which  shall 
not  die  (i  Cor.  xv.  51).  It  is  this  and  more:  the  instating  of 
redeemed  man  in  his  original  position  in  creation  and  his  re- 
lation to  it— a  redeemed  man  in  a  redeemed  world.  The 
conception  is  Jewish  (Ruth  iv. ;  Eph.  i.  14;  Rev.  v.  9,  10). 
Verses  22  and  23  are  placed  logically  side  by  side.  Creation 
groans  and  God's  sons  groan,  for  both  are  looking  for  things 
which  will  bring  each  in  right  relation  to  the  other. 

24,  25.  "  For  we  are  saved  by  hope."   A  much  better  trans- 


CVIII.  26,  27)  THE   SPIRIT  OF  LIFE  153 

lation  is  that  of  Moule,  Liddon,  and  others :  "  We  were  saved 
in  hope."  When  by  faith  the  salvation  from  sin  occurred,  the 
believer  found  himself  in  a  condition  of  hope.  From  this  con- 
dition Paul  argues  in  these  two  verses  for  the  "redemption" 
just  mentioned.  "  The  attitude  of  hope,  so  distinctive  of  the 
Christian,  implies  that  there  is  more  in  store  for  him  than  any- 
thing that  is  his  already  "  (Sanday).  Hope  suggests  something 
unseen,  unreahzed  ;  for  what  a  man  sees,  what  he  already  has, 
he  does  not  hope  for.  "  But  if  we  hope  [the  Christian's  con- 
dition] for  that  we  see  not,  then  [as  he  said  in  verse  23]  do  we 
with  patience  wait  for  it."  The  hope  of  the  exceeding  glory 
gives  the  holy  patience  that  persists  in  good  work  (ii.  7)  amid 
suffering. 

26,  27.  The  Spirit's  aid.  (See  {b)  under  1 7^  above.)  "  Like- 
wise the  Spirit  also  [just  like  hope]  helpeth  our  infirmities." 
"  Weakness  "  is  a  better  reading.  Without  the  Spirit  the  saint 
has  no  strength  to  attain  to  that  for  which  he  hopes.  Paul 
illustrates  this  in  one  single  item  belonging  to  Christian  walk. 
Prayer  is  the  simplest  and  easiest  of  all  activities,  and  yet  "  we 
know  not  what  we  should  pray  for  as  we  ought."  Whether 
this  refers  to  the  words  (the  manner)  of  the  prayer  or  the  sub- 
ject makes  little  difference.  The  two  views  come  to  the  same 
thing.  The  Spirit  helps  in  every  way.  The  weakness  is  not 
only  in  prayer,  but  general.  He  helps  by  taking  hold  with  the 
saint  against  the  opposition.  The  only  other  instance  of  the 
word  (Luke  x.  40)  is  instructive.  How  he  helps  in  general  is 
not  told,  but  in  the  matter  of  prayer  he  does  in  the  heart  what 
Christ  does  before  God  (see  verse  34  below) :  he  intercedes  in 
our  behalf.  The  earnest  manner  of  his  intercession  is  shown 
in  the  words,  "with  groanings  which  cannot  be  uttered," 
yearnings  whose  depth  is  beyond  the  power  of  words  to  con- 
vey. But,  while  the  utterances  are  not  intelligible,  "  he  [God] 
that  searcheth  the  hearts  [of  the  saints]  knoweth  what  is  the 
mind  of  the  Spirit."     God  knows  the  meaning  of  the  Spirit's 


154  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS       (VIII.  28) 

groan  and  interprets  the  inarticulated  aspiration  of  the  heart, 
"  because  he  [the  Spirit]  maketh  intercession  for  the  saints  [in 
the  groans  proceeding  from  their  hearts]  according  to  God." 
That  wordless  prayer  is  born  of  the  Spirit  in  accordance  with 
God's  purpose. 

28«  Here  Paul  abandons  particulars  to  show  generally  that 
the  whole  activity  of  God  is  directed  toward  the  ultimate  good 
of  those  that  love  him.  (See  {c)  under  \^b  above.)  While  the 
details  of  this  verse  and  the  next  one  present  some  difficulties, 
the  line  of  argument  is  clear.  The  present  verse  asserts  the 
fact  that  God  is  making  all  things  work  together  for  the  good 
of  his  people ;  the  next  verse  gives  the  reason  for  the  fact  in 
his  predestinating  them  from  the  beginning  to  be  like  his  Son. 
What  he  has  determined  at  the  beginning  to  accomplish  nothing 
along  the  way  can  thwart.  His  predetermination  controls 
everything  affecting  those  who  love  him. 

"  We  know  "—from  God's  dealing  with  the  Old  Testament 
saints  and  from  personal  experience.  ''That  all  things"— to 
be  taken  in  its  most  comprehensive  sense ;  some  of  the  things 
are  named  in  verse  35  and  verses  38  and  39  below.  "Work 
together"— in  concert  with  us,  because  they  are  under  God's 
control.  The  means  are  various,  the  purpose  one.  How  Jacob 
was  pained  for  long  years  by  the  loss  of  Joseph!  And  how 
Joseph  was  "hurt  with  fetters"  when  "laid  in  iron"  (Ps.  cv. 
1 7-22) !  But  God  took  this  means  to  make  him  ruler  of  Egypt 
and  savior  of  his  sorrowing  father  and  his  household.  "All 
things  work"- they  are  not  accidents  or  blind  chance;  God 
is  working  through  them.  This  is  true  only  of  "  them  that  love 
God,"  now  further  described  as  those  "  who  are  called  accord- 
ing to  his  purpose,"  to  show  that  their  love  to  God  was  not  a 
mere  natural  love,  but  the  fruit  of  his  special  love  toward  them. 
"  Called  "  does  not  mean  invited,  but  effectually  called  (i.  6), 
almost  equivalent  to  chosen.  This  call  was  in  harmony,  in 
accordance,  with  his  "  purpose  "  or  free  decree  to  bring  them 


(VIII.  29)  THE  SPIRIT  OF  LIFE  155 

to  glory  in  Christ.     Those  who  love  him  are  those  whom  he 
has  called. 

29.  Now  it  is  not  allowed  to  any  vicissitude  in  the  life  of 
such  to  harm  them.  "  For  whom  he  did  foreknow  [that  is,  his 
called  ones  who^love  him]  he  also  did  predestinate  "  for  hkeness 
to  Christ.  To  predestinate  is  to  determine  from  the  start  what 
shall  be  the  outcome.  It  is  this  active,  Hving,  ever-present, 
and  controlling  predestination  that  shields  the  lover  of  God 
from  harm  and  turns  "  all  things  "  to  his  good.  To  "  foreknow  " 
does  not  mean  to  approve  on  the  ground  of  character ;  it  does 
not  mean  that  God  foreknew  who  would  believe  and  there- 
fore predestinated  them.  God's  appointment  to  eternal  hfe  is 
chronologically  before  faith  (Acts  xiii.  48).  The  natural  man 
does  not  "seek  after  God"  (iii.  11);  his  mind  is  "enmity 
against  God  "  ;  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  "  for  indeed 
it  cannot  be  "  (viii.  7).  How  can  those  "  dead  in  trespasses  and 
sins"  (Eph.  ii.  i)  believe  in  God?  How  could  God  foreknow 
some  men  as  believers,  when  belief  was  impossible  to  them? 
What  his  prescience  saw  in  all  men  was  enmity  and  helpless- 
ness in  sin  because  of  a  love  of  it.  Even  when  they  knew  him 
they  deliberately  chose  to  dishonor  him  (i.  21-23).  Candor 
must  admit  that  these  plain  Scriptures  teach  the  helplessness 
of  man  in  his  sin.  But  it  is  said  that  by  the  preaching  of  the 
gospel  and  the  aid  of  the  accompanying  Spirit  men  are  brought 
into  a  condition  where  they  can  believe,  and  God  foresaw  who 
in  this  condition  would  beheve  and  predestinated  them.  This 
is  an  invention  outside  of  Scripture  to  meet  a  difficulty,  an 
invention  that  will  not  bear  scrutiny.  For  this  condition,  to 
be  effective,  must  be  one  in  which  the  death  in  sin  is  removed 
and  the  enmity  is  overcome,  which  is  nothing  less  than  regener- 
ation. And  thus  we  should  have  regeneration  as  a  condition 
of  faith,  and,  worse  yet,  that  in  this  condition  God  would  only 
see  sofue  who  believed  and  whom  he  might  predestinate.  Other 
regenerate  ones  who  failed  to  believe  would  perish. 


156  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS       (VIII.  30) 

Foreknowledge  would  better  be  left  where  Paul  leaves  it— 
without  any  of  these  additions.  It  differs  from  prescience,  by 
which  God  knows  all  things.  It  does  not  in  itself  include  the 
idea  of  selection,  but  when  Paul  says,  "whom  he  did  fore- 
know," we  see  it  is  closely  connected  with  this  idea.  He 
foreknew  certain  persons  ("  whom  "),  knew  them  before  they 
had  an  existence,  took  note  of  them  (Amos  iii.  2 ;  Matt.  vii. 
23),  and  these  he  destined  to  glory.  His  purpose  included 
their  faith,  of  course,  but  this  is  just  the  word  that  Paul  has 
not  used  since  v.  2  and  does  not  use  until  we  are  well-nigh 
through  the  next  chapter.  Where  he  does  not  use  it  we  would 
best  not.  And  we  would  best  leave  the  suggested  difficulty  of 
responsibility  and  free  will  where  he  leaves  it.  He  places  the 
salvation  of  God's  people  wholly  in  God's  hand,  and  surely 
there  it  is  secure,  secure  only  because  it  is  there. 

A  sculptor  would  make  a  beautiful  image  in  marble.  He 
knows  among  many  the  huge  rough  stone  which  he  will  use 
for  his  purpose.  He  destines  this  block  for  the  end  which  he 
has  in  view.  That  determination  on  his  part  preserves  it.  He 
will  chisel  and  rasp  and  file  on  the  block,  but  he  will  not  do 
anything  to  hurt  it,  and  he  will  see  to  it  that  no  one  else  mars 
it.  God's  foreknowledge  and  predestination  are  the  preserva- 
tion of  his  people,  making  all  things  work  for  good. 

"  Conformed  "  means  made  hke,  not  outwardly,  but  inwardly, 
in  character.  God  predestinates  men  not  for  heaven,  but  for 
holiness.  He  makes  "  all  things  work  together  "  toward  this 
end.  Trials  and  crosses  under  his  control  are  sanctifying. 
"  Tribulation  works  out  patience,"  etc.  (v.  3).  The  ultimate 
purpose  of  God's  predestination  is  to  surround  his  Son  with  a 
multitude  like  him,  that  by  this  likeness  they  may  be  his  breth- 
ren. The  likeness  will  be  completed  at  the  resurrection.  Since 
no  one  as  yet,  save  Jesus,  has  experienced  this  (i  Cor.  xv.  23), 
he  is. called  the  "  first-born." 

30»  This  verse  gives  the  steps  by  which  the  likeness  to  Christ, 


(•vnT.  31}  THE  SPIRIT  OF  LIFE  157 

the  glory,  is  reached  :  "  foreknew,"  "  predestinated,"  "  called," 
"justified,"  "glorified,"  five  golden  links  connecting  God's 
gracious  purpose  in  the  eternity  past  with  its  consummation  in 
the  eternity  to  come.  The  last  word,  "  glorified,"  in  the  past 
tense,  indicates  the  certainty  of  his  purpose.  (See  on  iv.  25, 
last  paragraph.)  But  this  verse  does  more  than  to  analyze  what .. 
precedes ;  jtpresejatsan^argument  by  means  of  the  recurring 
words  "whom"  and  "them."  These  are  also  hnks  in  the 
chain,  forged  in  with  it.  "  Whom  "  he  did  foreknow,  "  them," 
all  of  them,  he  did  "predestinate."  The  next  "  whom  "  takes 
up  the  same  persons  and  carries  them  to  the  next  stage,  and 
so  on  to  the  end.  The  argument,  when  condensed,  comes  to 
this:  that  the  very  ones  he  foreknew,  these,  without  the  loss 
of  one,  he  glorified. 

These  verses  give  an  intelligent  view  of  heaven.  God  did 
not  predestinate  and  call  his  people  to  a  place,  but  to  a  like- 
ness and  a  relation,  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son 
and  to  be  his  brethren,  that  is,  to  be  God's  sons.  Heaven  is 
not  where  his  people  shall  be,  but  what  they  shall  be. 

3J,  Here  the  hymn  of  triumph  sounds  its  first  exultant  note. 
(See  (4)  above.)  "What  shall  we  then  say  to  these  things," 
the  things  considered  in  the  last  few  verses?  Many  timid  and 
unintelhgent  and  even  unbelieving  things  are  said ;  how  one 
may  yield  to  temptation,  may  lose  the  Spirit,  or  his  faith  may 
fail.  The  one  overwhelming  answer  is,  "  If  [since]  God  is  for 
us,  who  can  be  against  us?  "  Why  does  Paul  not  say,  "  what 
can  be  against  us  "  rather  than  "  who  "?  The  hostile  force  is 
mainly  personal  (see  the  immediate  context  below  and  Eph. 
vi.  1 1-13),  but  not  wholly  so.  In  all  conflicts  and  trials  "  God 
is  for  us."  In  temptations  he  rescues  (i  Cor.  x.  13) ;  the  Spirit 
may  be  grieved  by  our  waywardness,  but  he  will  abide  (John 
xiv.  16) ;  and  as  for  faith,  will  God  care  for  everything  except 
that  which  is  vital?  Is  he  "for  us"  in  everything  but  faith? 
He  cares  for  this  first  of  all  (i  Tim.  i.  14 ;  Luke  xxii.  32). 


158  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (VIII.  32-34) 

32.  How  can  anything  be  added  to  this  verse?  God,  who 
is  "  rich  in  mercy,"  in  undertaking  to  save  men  spared  nothing. 
Heaven  was  emptied  to  enrich  God's  called  ones.  Everything 
was  given  (Eph.  i.  3)  that  his  people  might  be  saved.  The 
verse  contemplates  none  but  his  own.  The  "  all "  is  in  contrast 
with  the  One  delivered  up  for  them.  Paul  does  not  assert  that 
with  Christ  God  will  give  all  things.  He  rather  asks,  "  How 
shall  he  not  with  him  also  freely  give  us  all  things?  "  The 
Father,  after  bestowing  the  Son,  knows  of  no  way  to  withhold 
the  rest.  And  to  give  the  rest  is  small  in  comparison  after  he 
has  given  the  Son.  He  who  could  part  with  the  costly  jewel 
could  readily  give  the  Httle  case  in  which  it  is  preserved.  The 
mother  who  could  give  away  her  babe  would  wish  its  raiment 
to  go  with  it. 

33»  "Who  [personal  again]  shall  lay  anything  to  the  charge 
of  God's  elect  ?  "  To  "  lay  to  charge  "  is  a  legal  term,  mean- 
ing to  bring  to  account,  bring  a  charge  against.  Paul  returns 
in  this  word  to  the  forensic  language  of  the  earlier  chapters 
(and  see  Acts  xxvi.  7).  God's  ''elect"  are  his  own  chosen 
people.  The  word  recalls  the  "  whom  "  and  "  them  "  above. 
The  answer  might  be  put  interrogatively :  "  Is  it  God  that 
justifieth"  who  will  accuse?  But  it  is  more  forceful  to 
read  it  as  an  assertion,  almost  an  exclamation:  It  is  God  that 
justifieth  his  own  elect ;  can  wicked  men  or  lost  spirits  or  Satan 
himself  call  again  to  account  those  whose  case  has  been  fa- 
vorably decided  in  the  highest  place  of  judicature?  Even  to 
speak  against  God's  people  impeaches  the  Judge  and  is  con- 
tempt of  court — heaven's  court.  His  decision  of  justification 
in  favor  of  him  who  believes  is  final  and  irreversible. 

34.  "Who  is  he  that  condemneth?  "  As  no  one  can  open 
the  case  again  and  bring  a  charge  before  the  court,  so  no  one 
can  condemn,  for  Christ  is  a  fourfold  protection.  Are  there 
offenses?  He  "  died  "  for  them.  Is  there  need  of  life?  He 
is  "risen  again,"  and  we  are  "  saved  by  his  life  "  (v.  10).    Do 


(VIII.  35-37)  THE  SPIRIT  OF  LIFE  159 

we  need  representation  and  influence  at  the  court?  He  is  in 
the  chief  place  of  authority—  "  even  at  the  right  hand  of  God." 
Do  we  in  hours  of  transgression  and  weakness  need  an  Advo- 
cate? (i  John  ii.  I.)  He  "ever  Hveth  to  make  intercession 
for  us  "  (John  xvii.). 

35,  36^  "  Who  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ?  " 
It  is  Christ's  love  toward  us.  Again  we  have  "  who,"  for  the 
impersonal  conditions  which  Paul  goes  on  to  mention  do  not 
come  of  themselves.  Paul  is  no  doubt  writing  here  from  his 
own  experience,  and  all  his  troubles  came  from  wicked  men. 
Why  does  he  ask  whether  troubles  shall  separate  us  from  Christ's 
love  toward  us?  Because  they  seem  to  hang  like  a  heavy  cloud 
over  the  head,  shutting  out  the  light  of  his  countenance.  If 
he  is  loving  his  people,  why  do  these  miseries  overtake  them? 
The  proof  of  his  unchanging  love  is  his  word,  not  our  expe- 
rience. Experience  would  often  disprove  his  love.  But  he 
never  loves  his  people  more  than  when  he  allows  them  the 
honor  to  suffer  for  him  (Acts  v.  41  and  verse  17  above).  God's 
love  for  Jesus  did  not  cease  when  he  was  hanging  in  agony  on 
the  cross. 

The  word  "sword"  suggests  the  words  of  Psalm  xliv.  22, 
which  teach  that  his  people  now  suffer  no  more  than  those  of 
former  days,  and  surely  they  were  loved. 

37«  "  More  than  conquerors."  Who  can  be  "  more  "  than 
a  conqueror?  He  that  cannot  be  conquered,  A  litde  waste 
will  soon  exhaust  a  cistern,  but  a  living  fountain  with  sources 
deep  under  the  hills,  though  it  may  for  a  time  be  choked  up, 
cannot  be  dried  up  (John  iv.  14).  In  all  these  adverse  things 
his  true  followers  "are  more  than  conquerors,"  not  in  their 
own  strength,  but  "through  him  that  loved"  them.  Note,  it 
is  not  "  loves  "^not  present  tense.  He  does  love  them  through 
all  trials,  but  their  unconquerable  strength  lies  in  that  one  act 
of  love  when  he  died  for  them  and  by  rising  gained  for  them 
imperishableness  (Gal.  ii.  20).    , 


160  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS    (VIII.  38, 39) 

38,39*  "For  I  am  persuaded."  It  means  "I  have  been 
and  am  persuaded ;  I  stand  persuaded."  He  has  an  unalter- 
able conviction  in  the  matter.  The  verses  support  the  last 
one,  "  we  are  more  than  conquerors  through  him  that  loved 
us."  The  apostle's  eye  looks  through  all  time,  through  all 
space,  and  through  all  worlds,  and  in  the  most  sweeping  lan- 
guage he  asserts  his  persuasion  that  there  is  nothing  "  able  "  to 
break  the  golden  chain  that  binds  the  heart  of  God  to  his 
people.  They  may  be  put  to  death  in  his  cause,  or  in  the 
course  of  nature  die  in  it.  He  loves  them  in  "  death."  Life  is 
more  trying  and  has  more  dangers  than  death.  He  loves  them 
in  their  "  life."  There  are  bad  angels  and  organized  principali- 
ties for  evil.  He  has  already  made  a  spoil  of  them  (Col.  ii.  15). 
Against  secret  "  powers  "  of  satanic  malignity  we  can  stand  in 
the  "power  of  his  might"  (Eph.  vi.  10-12).  The  "things 
present "  are  very  pressing,  but  love  unclasps  their  grip.  The 
"things  to  come,"  the  future,  may  be  ominous,  but  "the  Lord 
is  my  Shepherd ;  I  shall  not  want.  .  .  .  Surely  goodness  and 
mercy  shall  follow  me  all  the  days  of  my  life"  (Ps.  xxiii.). 
And  nothing  in  space  above,  nor  depth  beneath,  nor  "  any  other 
created  thing"— this  language  embraces  every  conceivable 
adversary  in  the  universe— shall  be  able  to  separate  us  from 
God's  love  toward  us  in  Christ  Jesus.  When  he  gave  us  Christ 
Jesus  he  gave  us  in  him  all  the  love  he  felt  toward  the  Son. 

This  is  the  climax.  The  preceding  sections  have  been  dry 
and  doctrinal;  but  there  is  here  demonstrated  the  vital  con- 
nection between  doctrine  and  love.  It  is  out  of  these  hard 
sayings  of  predestination  and  election  that  there  flows  this 
hymn  of  adoring  confidence.  The  love  of  the  Spirit  is  found 
in  the  teaching  of  the  Spirit. 


CHAPTERS   IX-XI 

THE    THEODICY— god's    PRESENT    DEALING    WITH    THE    JEWS 

This  is  the  third  grand  division  of  the  epistle.  It  takes  up 
the  little  section  in  iii.  i-8,  "What  advantage  then  hath  the 
Jew?  "  and  carries  the  answer  to  its  utmost  limit.  This  must 
be  borne  in  mind,  for  however  far  Paul  may  digress  in  the 
discussion,  this  question  is  always  before  him  and  to  it  he 
continually  returns. 

This  matter  about  the  Jew's  relation  to  Christianity  was  a 
vital  one  in  Paul's  day.  The  current  interpretation  of  the 
Old  Testament  was  radically  affected  by  it,  and  the  Messiah- 
ship  of  Jesus  hung  upon  it. 

The  apostle  found  his  chief  defense  of  the  doctrine  of  justi- 
fication by  faith  in  the  Old  Testament ;  it  is  witnessed  by  the 
law  and  the  prophets.  His  argument  in  the  fourth  chapter  is 
unanswerable ;  but  even  such  an  argument  does  not  carry 
conviction  if  in  itself  it  starts  legitimate  and  serious  objections 
and  creates  more  difficulties  than  it  removes.  Faith  did  just 
this.  It  appeared  to  array  the  rest  of  the  Bible  against  Paul. 
For  faith  blotted  out  before  God  all  distinctions  among  men, 
rehgious  and  national  (Gal.  iii.  28),  and  reduced  all  to  the 
same  level.  God's  people,  whose  mark  had  been  circumcision, 
were  henceforth  to  be  found  only  in  the  select  band  of  the 
faithful.  Faith  usurped  the  divine  sign  given  to  Abraham. 
The  Jew  with  his  **  oracles  "  must  give  way  and  give  place  to 

161 


162  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS        (IX.-XI.) 

an  elect  church.  And  there  were  still  other  difficulties  stirred 
up  by  the  doctrine  of  faith. 

It  has  been  tacitly  assumed  in  Christian  interpretation  that 
Judaism's  day  is  over ;  that  an  elect,  leveling  church  built  on 
faith  in  Christ  was  the  intent  of  the  law  and  the  prophets ;  and 
that  it  was  the  duty  of  all  Jews  to  drop  their  peculiarities  and 
come  into  the  church.  Such  an  assumption  the  Jew  ascribed 
to  Paul.  It  is  strangely  forgotten  that  the  mother  church  in 
Jerusalem  and  Judea  never  had  a  Gentile  within  its  fold,  that 
none  could  have  been  admitted,  and  that  every  member  of  that 
primitive  body  of  tens  of  thousands  was  zealous  of  the  law 
(Acts  xxi.  20).  They  accepted  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  but 
abandoned  none  of  their  Old  Testament  customs  and  hopes. 
Christianity  has  suffered  not  a  little  in  the  continuous  attempt 
to  interpret  it  not  from  the  Jewish,  but  from  the  Gentile  point 
of  view.  The  church  in  Jerusalem,  and  not  the  church  in 
Antioch  or  Ephesus  or  Rome,  furnishes  the  only  sufficient 
historic  outlook. 

When  the  devout  but  unbelieving  Jew  opened  his  Bible 
almost  anywhere  he  found  promised  to  the  seed  of  Abraham 
a  universal  kingdom  of  righteousness.  Now  he  might  be  will- 
ing to  accept  faith  as  a  condition  of  righteousness,  but  the 
church  into  which  it  would  lead  him  was  neither  a  kingdom 
nor  was  it  universal.  Its  doctrine  of  election  precluded  uni- 
versalism  with  one  stroke.  Augustine  laid  the  foundation  to 
make  the  church  so,  and  the  result  is  sadly  known.  The  honey 
of  the  church  was  not  only  lost  in  the  vinegar  of  the  world, 
but  made  the  whole  mass  sevenfold  more  acid.  The  promise 
of  the  kingdom  was  world-wide  (Dan.  ii.  44  ;  vii.  14,  27  ;  Zech. 
xiv.  16-19  5  Ps.  ii.  8  ;  Isa.  ii.  1-5  ;  xi.  1-9,  etal.).  The  church 
has  no  such  promise.  "  To  make  it  the  interpretation  of  these, 
and  many  similar  Scriptures  is  to  make  an  end  both  of  the 
Scriptures  and  of  interpretation.  Paul  did  not  attempt  this 
method. 


(IX.-XI.)  THE    THEODICY  163 

Again,  these  and  other  passages  promised  that  the  Jew, 
with  his  Messiah  as  King,  should  have  universal  supremacy  in 
the  world,  and  all  other  nations  were  to  be  in  subordination. 
Faith  knew  no  supremacy.  It  created  a  body  of  believers 
following  a  rejected  Saviour,  with  no  promise  that  it  was  ever 
to  be  treated  in  any  other  way  than  he  was  (Matt.  x.  22-25  J 
John  XV.  20). 

Again,  if  the  Old  Testament  knew  a  suffering  Messiah,  it 
also  knew  a  triumphing  one.  The  Second  Psalm  is  Scripture 
as  well  as  Isaiah  hii. 

Again,  universal  reign,  supremacy  of  the  Jew,  a  world  King, 
were  all  promised  to  the  people  whose  distinctive  national 
mark  was  circumcision,  and  this  mark  was  forever  (Gen.  xvii. 

13.  14). 

Now  the  Jew  was  grieved  and  angered  that  righteousness 
by  faith  warred  against  these  hopes.  It  went  to  all  nations, 
but  sought  none,  sought  only  believing  individuals.  It 
claimed  God  as  its  own,  and  in  its  onward  progress  left  the 
Jew  behind.  Unless  Paul  can  answer  these  objections,  Jesus 
is  not  the  Messiah  and  the  church  is  not  God's  people. 

And  Paul  does  answer.  As  a  national  sign  circumcision 
stands  with  much  advantage  every  way ;  but  to  make  it  the 
ground  of  righteousness  is  as  unscriptural  as  it  would  be  if 
the  Ethiopian,  who  has  a  promise  of  salvation  (Ps.  Ixviii.  31), 
should  expect  it  on  account  of  the  color  of  his  skin.  The  Jew 
remains  a  Jew  and  has  his  inviolable  promises,  and  the  Ethi- 
opian has  his,  but  neither  realizes  them  by  anything  but  faith. 
Here  was  the  Jew's  failure. 

Paul's  course  of  thought  is  that  for  the  present  Judaism  is 
side-tracked ;  but  God's  Word  has  not  failed,  nor  is  he  unjust 
in  leaving  Israel  to  fall.  What  he  is  doing  meanwhile  in 
gathering  an  elect  body  of  believers  which  has  none  of  Israel's 
promises,  this,  though  not  revealed  in  the  Old  Testament,  can 
be  abundantly  defended  by  it  (ix.  24-29),  just  as  righteous- 


164  THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS        (IX.-XI.) 

ness  by  faith  was  buttressed  by  these  same  Scriptures.  In 
God's  own  time  he  will  return  to  Israel  (Isa.  xi.  10-12  ;  Acts 
XV.  16,  17),  when  they  shall  "all"  be  saved  and  come  into 
their  promises  and  privileges.  Their  present  rejection,  to  be 
received  by  and  by,  is  God's  purpose  for  the  saving  of  the 
world  and  to  enhance  his  own  glory. 

The  topic  of  this  section  must  not  be  confounded  with  that 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  The  two  are  quite  different. 
Hebrews  is  dealing  with  the  question  of  approach  to  God,  the 
question  of  worship  and  acceptance.  Once  the  Jew  drew  near 
by  means  of  divers  sacrifices  and  ceremonies  prescribed  by 
Moses.  These  were  superseded  in  Christ,  and  while  they  re- 
main instructive,  they  are  no  longer  mediatorial.  Hebrews 
teaches  just  what  Romans  teaches  up  to  the  point  now  reached 
in  the  latter,  that  without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God. 
Hebrews  is  absolutely  silent  on  the  theme  of  this  theodicy,  but 
declares  how  God  now  and  forevermore  is  to  be  served— in 
faith.  It  says  nothing  about  the  Jew  nationally,  and  nothing 
about  the  church. 

The  question  before  us  is  not  one  concerning  ceremonies. 
It  is  deeper  and  broader.  It  embraces  God's  whole  plan  to 
bring  the  world  to  Christ.  That  plan  is  outlined  in  the  Old 
Testament,  that  contemplates  the  salvation  of  all  nations  as 
nations,  with  the  Jew's  individuality  preserved  and  himself  far 
in  the  van. 

The  church  does  not  usurp  the  special  promises  made  to 
Israel ;  whose  unbelief  shall  not  "  make  the  faith  of  God  with- 
out effect "  (iii.  3),  and  the  world  will  not  be  converted  till  Is- 
rael is,  for  the  church  has  no  promise  of  this,  and  Israel  has. 


CHAPTER   IX 

Israel's  rejection  considered 

(i)  It  is  a  great  sorrow  of  heart  to  the  apostle  of  the  Gen- 
tiles (verses  1-5) ;  (2)  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  God's  Word 
(verses  6-13) ;  (3)  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  his  justice  (verses 
14-29) ;  (4)  present  state  of  the  case  (verses  30-33). 

t-3^  "  I  say  the  truth  in  Christ,  I  he  not."  The  transition 
from  the  eighth  chapter  is  abrupt.  The  sudden  change  may 
be  accounted  for  psychologically.  The  apostle  had  just  been 
contemplating  the  certainty  of  the  glory  of  the  sons  of  God ; 
his  heart  goes  now  to  the  other  extreme,  the  failure  and  mis- 
ery of  his  own  countrymen. 

This  vehement  language  was  necessary,  because  in  giving 
the  gospel  to  the  heathen  Paul  was  looked  upon  by  the  Jew 
as  an  enemy  of  his  own  nation.  Some  of  the  Roman  church, 
knowing  as  they  did  the  exclusiveness  of  the  Jews,  might  be 
persuaded  that  Paul  was  an  apostate  rather  than  an  apostle  of 
God.  He  must  defend  himself.  He  is  about  to  outline  Israel's 
shame.  Let  it  be  seen  that  the  picture  is  drawn  not  by  an 
enemy,  but  by  a  loving  friend,  whose  heart  is  breaking  as  he 
paints. 

"Accursed  from  Christ."  This  language  is  starding  and 
has  troubled  many ;  but  it  is  in  the  very  spirit  of  Israel's  great 
leader,  Moses  (Exod.  xxxii.  32),  and  may  we  not  say,  though 
the  word  is  different,  in  the  spirit  of  Christ?     (Gal.  iii.  13.) 

165 


166  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS         (IX.  4,  5) 

Besides,  this  is  not  the  language  of  deHberation,  but  of  heart- 
breaking passion,  in  which  he  says,  "  I  could  [were  it  per- 
mitted or  were  it  possible]  wish  myself  accursed  [away]  from 
[not  "by  "]  Christ."  It  is  this  grief  at  the  loss  of  men,  this  in- 
tense yearning  for  their  salvation,  that  made  Paul  the  preacher 
he  was. 

4,  5#  "  Who  are  Israelites,"  or  being  such  as  are  Israehtes, 
a  term  of  the  highest  honor,  God's  princes  (Gen.  xxxii.  28). 
He  enumerates  seven  particulars  which  belong  especially  to 
them :  {a)  they  were  adopted  as  God's  people ;  {b)  they  alone 
had  the  Shekinah  "  glory  "  ;  [c]  the  "  covenants,"  made  with 
the  fathers  (Gen.  vi.  18;  xv.  18;  Exod.  ii.  24)  and  renewed 
from  time  to  time  (hence  the  plural),  were  theirs  alone;  [d) 
the  "law"  amid  imposing  splendors  was  given  to  them;  {e) 
the  temple  "  service  "  was  divinely  prescribed  for  them ;  no 
other  nation  had  an  authorized  worship;  (/)  they  were  the 
only  people  who  had  "  promises  "  of  the  Messiah  and  of  direct 
blessings  through  him ;  the  other  nations  received  them  through 
Israel ;  [g)  the  "  fathers  "—Abraham,  the  head  of  many  nations, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob— were  theirs  ;  other  nations  had  great  ances- 
tors, but  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  have  the  honor  of  being 
not  merely  natural,  but  divinely  chosen  chiefs. 

Besides  these  seven  all  their  own,  the  Israelites  had  one 
other  honor  in  which  they  shared,  an  honor  that  overtops  all 
the  rest.  The  "  whose  "  changes  now  to  "  of  whom."  The 
fathers  are  theirs,  but  the  Christ,  though  he  came  from  them 
in  his  human  relation,  belongs  to  the  world.  To  show  the 
greatness  of  this  honor  Christ  is  declared  to  be  God  over  all, 
blessed  forever.  Sanday  ("  Commentary,"  in  loc),  after  an  ex- 
haustive examination  of  all  the  arguments  bearing  on  the 
punctuation  of  this  passage,  "  with  some  sHght,  but  only  slight, 
hesitation,"  admits  that  Paul  here  applies  the  name  God  to 
Christ.     No  other  view  gives  the  passage  its  climactic  point. 

Paul  mentions  all  these  things  not  only  to  set  forth  the  Is- 


,<:><? 


(IX.  6,  7)      ISRAELS  REJECTION  CONSIDERED  167 

raelites'  preeminence,  but  to  show  the  painfulness  and  difficulty 
of  the  problem  now  in  hand.  They  had  the  promises  and  the 
Christ  sprang  from  them,  and  yet  these  covenant  people  were 
reaping  nothing  from  these  advantages.  Jesus  belonged  to 
them,  but  they  did  not  belong  to  Jesus.  Could  Paul's  doc- 
trine of  an  elective  justification  for  all  nations  be  true?  Israel 
is  rejected. 

6,  Paul  abruptly  lays  hold  of  the  question.  The  Jews  have 
failed,  but  God's  Word  has  not.  (See  (2)  above.)  The  em- 
phasis is  on  the  phrase  "  the  Word  of  God."  The  proof  of  no 
failure  is  that  the  promises  were  made  to  Israel,  but  they  were 
not  made  to  them  on  the  ground  of  their  natural  descent  from 
Abraham.  The  real  Israel  is  within  the  limits  of  the  natural 
Israel.  For  Paul  is  not  now  contemplating  the  church  com- 
posed of  men  from  Jews  and  Gentiles  alike.  These,  though 
called  "  Abraham's  seed  "  (Gal.  iii.  29)  and  "  children  of  Abra- 
ham "  (Gal.  iii.  7),  are  never  called  Israel  or  Israelites.  Gala- 
tians  vi.  16  is  not  an  exception  to  this  statement,  but  a  proof. 
(See  Ellicott,  "  Commentary,"  in  loc.)  Paul  is  defending 
God's  Word  in  view  of  the  claim  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah 
with  a  true  people  following  him,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
Israel  is  not  saved.  His  answer  is  that  "  they  are  not  all  [true] 
Israel,  which  are  of  [from]  Israel."  The  latter  may  mean  the 
patriarch  (Jacob)  or  it  may  mean  the  nation  natural.  What 
Paul  denies  in  either  case  is  that  the  real  Israel,  contemplated 
in  the  Old  Testament  promise,  is  not  identical  in  number  with 
the  nation  of  Israel. 

7.  That  the  real  Israel  should  not  be  as  wide  numerically 
as  the  natural  Israel  is  supported  by  the  further  statement  that 
even  Abraham's  natural  seed  were  not  all  of  them  children  of 
the  covenant.  The  promise  was  limited  to  Isaac,  and  Ishmael 
was  left  out,  although  he  also  is  called  Abraham's  "seed" 
(Gen.  xxi.  13).  Paul  thus  keeps  the  all-important  point  fore- 
most, that  the  promise  to  Israel  was  a  vital  promise,  still  hold- 


168  THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS         (IX.  8, 9) 

ing,  but  not  on  the  condition  of  mere  natural  descent.  God 
did  not  surrender  his  prerogatives  in  the  case  to  nature.  Note 
that  to  reach  clearness  in  this  and  similar  Scripture  the  phrase 
"  seed  of  Abraham  "  must  be  properly  referred.  It  has  three 
meanings,  two  of  which  occur  in  this  verse,  the  natural  seed 
(John  viii.  37)  and  the  real  seed.  Its  third,  quite  distinct  from 
these,  is  the  church  (Gal.  iii.  29). 

§♦  This  verse  shows  the  significance  of  the  promise,  "  In 
Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called."  If  God  limited  the  promise 
to  one  of  Abraham's  children,  excluding  Ishmael  and  the  sons 
of  Keturah,  it  follows  that  "  they  which  are  the  children  of  the 
flesh  are  not  the  children  of  God."  God's  children  are  not 
the  product  of  nature ;  they  are  not  begotten  by  man,  but  by 
him.  Who,  then,  are  his  own,  to  whom  the  promises  were 
spoken?  Not  even  the  natural  descendants  of  Isaac  ;  for  the 
principle  already  given,  that  the  children  of  the  flesh  as  such 
are  excluded,  excludes  Isaac's  fleshly  descent,  excludes  Esau. 
God's  children  are  those  of  whom  Isaac  is  a  type.  He  was 
born  not  by  the  energy  of  nature,  but  was  a  supernatural 
creation  in  accordance  with  a  divine  promise.  Hence  "the 
children  of  the  promise  are  counted  [are  reckoned,  equal  to 
"  called  "  in  verse  7]  for  the  seed  [or  "  as  seed  "]"  (John  i.  13). 
"  Children  of  promise  "  is  not  equivalent  to  promised  children. 
The  word  is  almost  personified.  God's  promise  is  a  potent 
energy,  quickening  those  to  whom  his  covenant  pertains. 
Thus  the  seed  is  found  "  in  Isaac,"  in  his  line.  They  are  all 
his  offspring,  but  not  all  the  offspring  are  "counted  for  the 
seed." 

9^  If  the  children  of  the  promise  are  the  only  ones  "  counted," 
of  whom  Isaac  is  the  apt  type,  it  is  necessary  to  show  that  he 
was  a  child  of  promise,  as  this  verse  does.  The  original  order 
brings  out  the  force  better :  "  For  of  promise  is  this  word,"  the 
quotation  which  follows.  The  emphatic  word  is  "promise." 
Accordingly,  as  Meyer  strikingly  observes,  "We  see  that  not 


(IX.  IO-I2)     ISRAEL'S  REJECTION  CONSIDERED  169 

the  bodily  descent,  but  the  divine  promise,  constitutes  the  re- 
lation of  belonging  to  Abraham's  fatherhood."  But  he  fails 
to  observe  a  subtle  point  in  the  quotation.  The  child  was  to 
be  not  only  the  gift  of  God's  power,  "  will  I  come,"  but  given 
in  his  own  time:  "At  this  time  will  I  come."  The  happy 
season  for  the  realization  of  the  promise  was  not  yet.  He 
selected  the  time  as  well  as  the  child,  and  the  time  was  when 
he  should  come  with  quickening  power.  Paul  intimates  that 
Israel's  hour  has  not  yet  dawned. 

J0-J2*  "And  not  only  this  [or,  fully  expressed,  "And 
not  only  Sarah  received  a  divine  promise  concerning  her 
son "] ;  but  when  Rebecca,"  etc.  In  Rebecca's  case  the 
divine  action  is  still  more  pointed.  In  saying  that  she  was 
with  child  "  by  one,"  Paul  is  not  calling  attention  to  the  unity 
of  the  fatherhood,  which  would  be  absurd.  It  does  not  mean 
by  one  man  (Meyer),  as  though  there  might  be  two.  The 
"  one  "  focuses  the  attention  on  him  in  whom  the  seed  was 
called,  "even  our  father  Isaac."  He  is  significantly  called 
"  our,"  that  is,  Israel's,  "  father."  The  promise  was  in  Isaac's 
line  of  descent,  and  yet  even  here  there  is  a  selection  and  a 
limitation. 

The  "for"  (eleventh  verse)  bears  on  this  clearly  implied 
limitation,  and  brings  in  the  statements  that  illustrate  it.  The 
children  were  not  yet  born  ;  they  had  done  neither  good  nor 
evil ;  the  selection,  then,  was  not  made  either  on  the  ground 
of  their  character  or  on  the  ground  of  their  works.  To  say 
that  God  foresaw  the  good  character  and  good  works  of  Jacob 
is  to  import  an  idea  that  is  repugnant  to  the  logic  of  the  state- 
ment here  made  by  Paul  and  contradicted  by  the  subsequent 
facts.  Jacob's  history  does  not  show  him  to  be  a  better  man 
morally  than  his  brother ;  his  very  name  indicates  his  charac- 
ter. (See  below  on  verse  14.)  Human  merit,  present  or  fore- 
seen, does  not  enter  into  God's  choice.  Again,  if  God  chose 
Isaac  and  rejected  Ishmael  it  might  be  said  mistakenly  that 


170  THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS      (IX.  10-12) 

the  selection  was  made  because  of  the  latter's  irregular  pa- 
rentage. That  mistake  is  not  possible  in  the  case  of  Jacob 
and  Esau.  Isaac  and  Ishmael  had  only  one  parent  in  com- 
mon; Jacob  and  Esau  had  both  and  the  children  were 
twins. 

We  are  next  told  the  reason  for  dealing  thus  with  the  twins : 
"  that  the  purpose  of  God  according  to  election  might  stand." 
It  is  an  according-to-election  purpose.  Paul  finds  the  source 
of  salvation  in  God  alone.  He  had  a  "purpose"  to  save. 
This  purpose  cannot  be  of  "  none  effect,"  but  must  "  stand," 
because,  first,  it  is  not  universal,  but  is  Hmited  to  an  "  elec- 
tion," a  selection,  as  in  the  case  of  Isaac  against  Ishmael. 
The  one  elected  was  the  one  he  promised.  The  idea  of 
promise,  with  which  Paul  began,  is  the  same  as  that  in  the 
word  "  election."  And,  secondly,  God's  elective  purpose  will 
"  stand  "  because  it  is  determined  "  not  by  [or  "  of  "]  works, 
but  by  [or  *'  of  "]  him  that  calleth,"  that  is,  God  himself.  Now, 
in  order  that  God  might  show  this  purpose,  a  purpose  that 
was  elective  and  based  on  his  own  will,  he  said  before  the 
twins  were  born,  "The  elder  shall  serve  the  younger."  By 
his  own  will  he  reversed  the  order  of  nature  and  took  but  one 
of  the  twin  sons  of  Isaac,  in  whom  the  seed  was  promised. 

If  Paul  began  this  chain  of  reasoning  under  the  proposition 
(verse  6)  that  the  Word  of  God  has  not  failed  in  the  case  of 
the  Jew,  and  now  concludes  it  with  the  proposition  that  his 
purpose  has  not  failed,  but  must  "  stand,"  there  is  only  an  ap- 
parent shifting  of  terms.  It  is  the  Word  of  God  that  em- 
bodies the  purpose,  and  in  speaking  of  the  latter  Paul  means 
no  other  purpose  but  the  one  disclosed  in  the  "Word."  The 
propositions  are  logically  identical.  The  Jews  erred,  not 
knowing  the  Scripture.  They  stuck  to  their  baseless  notion 
that  because  they  were  the  natural  descent  of  Abraham  they 
were  heirs  of  salvation,  a  notion  against  which  Jesus  solemnly 
warned  them.     He  admitted  that  they  were  Abraham's  natu- 


(IX.  I3-I6)      ISRAELS  REJECTION  CONSIDERED  171 

ral  "  seed,"  but  denied  that  they  were  his  promised  "  children  " 
(John  viii.  37,  39). 

J3*  "  As  it  is  written,  Jacob  [have]  I  loved,  but  Esau  [have] 
I  hated."  Omit  "  have  "  in  both  cases.  This  Scripture,  which 
looks  only  logically  at  the  original  two,  but  directly  at  their 
descendants  (Mai.  i.  1-4),  is  quoted  to  corroborate  the  original 
choice.  God's  motive  in  it  was  neither  love  of  the  one  nor 
hate  of  the  other,  but  simply  "of  him  that  calleth."  But,  the 
choice  once  made,  God's  love  followed  Jacob's  seed,  showing 
the  reality  of  his  election,  and  his  hate  followed  Esau's,  show- 
ing the  reality  of  his  rejection.  The  word  "  hated  "  need  not 
be  softened. 

Paul  has  now  so  far  vindicated  God's  Word  despite  the 
failure  of  Israel.  Jesus  is  the  Messiah,  even  if  they  as  a  na- 
tion have  not  participated  in  his  blessings;  for  when  Paul 
closely  scans  the  source  of  the  nation  he  finds  it  has  no  prom- 
ise on  the  ground  of  lineal  descent  from  Abraham.  That 
promise  belongs  only  to  chosen  elect  ones  among  the  nation, 
chosen  for  nothing  whatever  pertaining  to  them,  but  solely 
after  God's  own  will.  This  starts  a  serious  objection  about 
the  divine  justice,  which  Paul  proceeds  to  answer.  (See  (3) 
above.) 

J4»  "  Is  there  unrighteousness  with  God?  "  This  question 
could  not  arise  unless  Paul  wished  himself  to  be  understood 
as  teaching  that  God  chose  Jacob  and  rejected  Esau  for  no 
assignable  reason  outside  his  own  will.  If  God  chose  Jacob 
because  he  foresaw  his  faith  or  his  virtue,  and  rejected  Esau 
for  an  opposite  character,  reason  would  approve  and  the  ques- 
tion of  this  verse  could  not  be  asked.  But  when  it  is  taught 
that  God  chose  Jacob  for  no  good  in  him,  and  rejected 
("hated  ")  Esau  for  no  bad  in  him,  man's  narrow  heart  feels 
that  an  injustice  has  been  done.  This  sentiment  Paul  repels : 
"  God  forbid." 

J5^  J6«  Paul  finds  the  argument  for  his  vehement  denial  of 


172  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (IX.  17) 

injustice  in  God  not  by  abstract  reasoning  about  the  idea  of 
justice,  but  in  the  Scriptures.  The  quotation  is  from  Exodus 
xxxiii.  19.  The  great  Jewish  captain  is  earnestly  seeking 
grace  from  God.  It  might  be  supposed  that  he  could  attain 
it  on  the  ground  of  his  office  and  merit ;  but  even  "  to  Moses," 
God  saith,  he  gives  mercy  not  because  he  is  Moses,  or  because 
he  seeks  it,  but  just  because  it  is  God's  "  will "  to  do  so.  It 
is  a  bold,  crisp  assertion  of  the  divine  freedom  in  bestowing 
grace.  '*  In  any  case  through  human  history  wherein  I  shall 
be  seen  to  have  mercy,  the  one  account  I  give  of  the  radical 
cause  is  \}s\\%—I  have  mercy  "  (Moule).  Mercy  is  the  outward 
manifestation  of  the  feeling  of  compassion. 

The  conclusion  follows.  God's  mercy  is  not  the  response 
to  human  desire  nor  to  human  effort.  It  is  not  of  him  that 
"  willeth  "  or  wishes  it,  as  Moses  did,  and  not  of  him  who 
''  runneth  "  in  the  path  of  right.  Willing  and  running  may  in- 
dicate the  possession  of  grace,  but  they  are  not  the  originating 
cause.  They  may  be  the  channel,  but  they  are  not  the  foun- 
tain. The  source  of  grace  is  God's  own  will,  that  goes  out  to 
whom  he  will.  Mercy  is  "  of  God,  that  showeth  mercy  "  in- 
dependent of  any  motive  in  man. 

J7»  "  For  the  Scripture  saith  unto  Pharaoh."  Moses'  his- 
tory bears  on  the  election  of  Jacob ;  Pharaoh's  on  the  rejec- 
tion of  Esau.  The  latter  is  cited  for  the  same  purpose  as  the 
former— -to  show  God's  freedom  and  sovereignty  in  dealing 
with  men.  As  he  grants  mercy  after  his  own  will,  so  also  he 
withholds  it,  and  hardens  whom  he  will.  Ten  times  in  the 
Scripture  about  Pharaoh  it  is  said  he  hardened  himself;  but 
Paul  makes  no  account  of  this,  for  his  clear  intention  is  to  ac- 
count for  Pharaoh's  overthrow  by  the  free  purpose  of  God. 
And  yet  God  did  not  harden  him  for  the  sake  of  the  harden- 
ing, but  that  the  divine  power  might  have  a  field  of  display 
and  that  the  divine  name  might  become  known.  If  Pharaoh 
had  willingly  and  sweetly  allowed  the  people  to  depart,  there 


(IX.  i8,  19)     ISRAEL'S  REJECTION  CONSIDERED  173 

could  have  been  no  miracles  "  in  Egypt  and  in  the  Red  Sea  " 
(Acts  vii.  36),  and  the  children  of  Israel  would  have  had  no 
fame  as  God's  own  chosen,  a  fame  that  endured  for  centuries 
(i  Sam.  iv.  8).  God's  glory  is  promoted  in  the  overthrow  of 
a  sinner  as  much  as  in  saving  one.  God  wished  men  to  know 
him  and  his  power,  and  for  this  purpose  "  raised  up  "  Pharaoh, 
which  means  neither  that  God  created  nor  preserved  him  for 
his  purpose,  but  that  God  brought  about  everything  that  be- 
longs to  the  history  of  the  king. 

In  selecting  Pharaoh  as  an  example  of  God's  hardening 
Paul  shows  his  skill.  Pharaoh  was  a  detestable  heathen  op- 
pressor, and  undue  prejudice  would  not  be  excited  against  the 
doctrine  in  illustrating  it  by  his  case. 

\Z^  This  gives  the  solemn  and  awful  conclusion  of  the  sec- 
tion beginning  at  verse  14,  or  even  as  far  back  as  verse  7. 
The  word  *'  whom  "  is  singular.  The  subject  is  not  one  about 
nations,  but  about  individuals,  not  one  about  ethnic  supremacy 
or  leadership,  but  about  personal  salvation.  "  Therefore  hath 
he  mercy  on  what  man  he  will,  and  what  man  he  will  he 
hardeneth."  God  is  absolute  sovereign,  allowing  nothing  to 
direct  his  activity  but  his  own  will.  His  Word  is  true,  as  true 
as  he  is,  but  he  has  never  uttered  a  word  to  abridge  his  free- 
dom, nor  can  his  Word,  like  a  promissory  note,  be  pleaded 
against  his  freedom.  This  hardening  process  is  going  on  to- 
day ;  it  can  be  read  as  clearly  in  current  history  as  in  God's 
Word.  And  yet  man  is  also  free  in  choosing  God  and  free  in 
refusing  him.  The  reconciliation  of  these  two  is  a  question 
of  philosophy,  and  philosophy  fails  in  the  effort.  The  Bible 
does  not  attempt  it,  but  stops  with  asserting  that  both  are 
realities. 

J9»  "Why  doth  he  yet  find  fault?"  This  puts  the  query 
of  verse  14  in  a  more  aggravated  form.  There  it  is  a  ques- 
tion about  the  justice  of  God ;  here  it  is  virtually  a  charge  of 
injustice.     He  hardened  Pharaoh ;  he  willed  to  harden  him, 


174  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (IX.  20) 

Pharaoh  did  just  what  God  willed ;  he  did  not  resist  his  will ; 
no  one  does  whom  he  hardens.  "  Why  doth  he  yet  find  fault " 
and  visit  dire  punishment  upon  sinners? 

20^  "  Nay  but,  O  man."  Paul  has  already  answered  this 
question  as  far  as  possibly  it  ever  can  be  answered.  The  an- 
swer is  to  the  point  and  practical.  It  is  that  God  is  free  to 
do  as  he  will ;  he  is  a  sovereign ;  and  what  is  the  idea  of  abso- 
lute sovereignty  but  that  he  who  has  it  is  under  no  obligation 
to  give  a  reason  for  anything  which  he  does?  If  he  must  give 
a  reason  for  his  actions  he  is  no  longer  sovereign,  but  the  rea- 
son given  enjoys  that  distinction,  not  to  say  the  persons  to 
whom  it  must  be  given.  This  matter  is  not  peculiar  to  the 
gospel ;  it  belongs  to  every  religion  that  owns  a  personal  God. 
A  God  is  one  whose  will  is  free,  whose  will  is  law. 

The  question,  then,  **Why  doth  he  yet  find  fault?"  is  not 
only  impious,  but  blasphemous.  The  man  sets  himself  up  to 
condemn  not  only  the  decree  of  God,  but  to  claim  a  higher 
justice  for  himself ;  he  replies  not  merely  against  God's  judg- 
ment, but  against  the  only  possible  conception  given  in  the 
word  "  God."  In  complaining  against  God  for  hardening  a 
man  to  do  a  wicked  thing  and  then  finding  fault  with  that 
man  for  doing  it,  the  complainant  says,  "  There  ought  not  to 
be  such  a  God;  that  is,  there  ought  to  be  what  is  really  no 
God,  one  with  such  notions  of  justice  toward  men  as  I  have!  " 
The  man  exalts  himself  above  God  in  sitting  in  judgment  upon 
the  divine  acts.  The  fallacy  is  in  his  idea  of  what  constitutes 
a  God.  Godet  weakens  Paul's  rejoinder,  "  Who  art  thou  that 
repliest?  "  by  saying  that  he  means  "  a  reply  to  a  reply."  No  ; 
Paul's  whole  argument  is  drawn  from  the  nature  of  God.  His 
opponent  is  more  than  a  debater;  he  is  well-nigh  atheistic. 
Shedd's  exposition  here  is  better  than  Godet's :  "  An  irreverent 
equahzing  of  man  with  God." 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  whatever  God  does  is  neces- 
sarily just;  because,  if  there  is  anything  outside  his  own  will 


( I X.  2 1 )        ISKA  EJ:  S  REJE  C  TION  considered  175 

by  which  to  measure  the  actions  of  that  will,  that  thing  is 
higher  than  God.  For  human  reason  or  human  sense  of 
right  to  sit  in  judgment  on  God's  acts  is  as  foolish  as  it  is 
wicked. 

Again,  he  who  replies  against  God  must  mean,  if  he  means 
anything,  that  it  is  God's  hardening  that  deprives  a  soul  of 
salvation ;  that  if  God  did  not  interpose  with  an  election,  and 
take  some  and  leave  others  to  be  hardened,  all  men  would  at 
least  have  an  equal  opportunity  of  salvation.  This  is  false. 
If  God  did  not  elect,  none  would  be  saved,  for  there  is  "  none 
that  seeketh  after  God"  (iii.  ii).  And  men  are  not  lost  be- 
cause they  are  hardened ;  they  are  hardened  because  they  are 
lost;  they  are  lost  because  they  are  sinners  (i.  21). 

God  is  not  responsible  for  sin.  He  is  under  no  obligation 
to  save  any  one.  Obligation  and  sovereignty  cannot  both  be 
predicated  of  God.  If  he  saves  any  one  it  is  a  sovereign  act 
of  mercy,  and  for  that  very  reason  his  justification  is  tanta- 
mount to  salvation. 

It  must  not  be  supposed  (with  Sanday,  apparently)  that  Paul's 
argument  through  this  section  is  an  ad  homi?tem  drawn  from 
the  Jew's  Old  Testament  conception  of  God.  It  is  drawn 
from  the  nature  of  sovereignty,  the  necessary  conception  of 
God.  Neither  does  Paul  lay  his  hand  on  the  mouth  of  the 
objector  and  cry,  "  Stop!  "  He  confutes  him  with  one  single 
logical  shaft :  God  is  God. 

**  Shall  the  thing  formed  say."  Note  that  Paul  does  not 
say,  '*  Shall  the  thing  created  say  to  him  that  created  it."  It 
is  not  a  question  of  original  creation,  but  of  subsequent  des- 
tination. What  would  the  ability  to  fashion  be  worth  if  it 
were  under  the  dictation  of  that  which  is  to  be  fashioned? 

2J»  "  Hath  not  the  potter  power  over  the  clay,"  from  the 
same  lump  to  make  one  part  a  vessel  to  honor  and  another  to 
dishonor?  (Isa.  xlv.  9  ;  Ixiv.  8  ;  Jer.  xviii.  i-io.)  This  illus- 
tration enforces  the  idea  of  God's  sovereignty.     To  be  sure, 


176  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (IX.  22) 

men  are  not  senseless  clay,  but  beings  of  feeling  and  will ;  and 
yet,  with  all  feeling  and  will  and  intelligence,  they  are  as  help- 
less, being  sinners,  to  fit  themselves  to  please  God  as  clay  left 
to  itself  is  helpless  to  become  an  ornamental  vase.  The  pot- 
ter does  not  make  the  clay.  He  takes  it  as  he  finds  it  and 
fashions  out  of  the  same  lump— the  "clay"  and  the  "lump" 
are  identical  in  character  and  quantity— one  part  a  vessel  to 
ornament  the  house  and  another  part  a  vessel  for  some  base 
use.  Originally  the  two  were  the  same  thing — clay;  the  pot- 
ter determined  their  destination.  Pharaoh  and  Moses  origi- 
nally belonged  to  the  same  guilty  lump  of  humanity.  Moses 
was  inherently  no  better  than  the  Egyptian  king.  God  had 
mercy  on  one  and  fashioned  him  into  a  glorious  instrument  of 
deliverance  for  his  people ;  the  other  he  hardened,  and  to  deny 
God's  justice  in  so  doing  is  as  absurd  as  to  deny  that  the  pot- 
ter has  a  right  to  turn  base  clay  into  a  slop-jar.  Why  it  is 
that  men  are  sinners  neither  Paul  nor  the  Bible  anywhere 
teaches;  but  sinners  under  God's  wrath  they  are,  and  he  is 
not  responsible  that  they  are  sinners,  and  from  the  lump  of 
sinful  humanity  may  choose  for  his  service  whom  he  will  and 
may  harden  at  his  pleasure.  To  confess  this  is  the  very  high- 
est exercise  of  reason. 

22*  Now,  after  Paul  has  vindicated  the  idea  of  God  in  vin- 
dicating his  sovereignty,— for  a  God  who  is  not  absolutely  free 
to  do  as  he  will  is  no  God,— he  shows  next  and  in  addition 
how  graciously  he  exercised  his  freedom.  Though  "willing 
to  show  his  wrath  [to-day],  and  to  make  his  power  known,"  as 
in  Pharaoh's  case,  he,  after  all,  endured  in  much  long-suffer- 
ing the  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  to  destruction.  Paul  does  not 
now  say  that  God  fitted  them.  He  bore  with  them.  Jeru- 
salem, that  crucified  his  Son  and  slew  his  followers,  was  still 
standing  after  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century.  God  tem- 
pered his  sovereign  wrath  with  long-suffering. 

This  sentence,  embracing  verses  22-24,  is  not  complete. 


(IX.  23,  24)     ISRAEL'S  REJECTION  CONSIDERED  177 

It  is  almost  a  worshipful  exclamation,  but  may  be  read  as  in 
the  King  James  version,  "  What  if,"  "  What  shall  we  say 
if,"  etc. 

23«  Closely  connected  with  the  last  verse  by  means  of  the 
word  "  endured."  The  "  vessels  of  mercy  "  called  also  for  en- 
durance. The  writer  of  the  epistle  could  not  forget  that,  had 
God's  just  wrath  fallen  upon  the  Jews  at  the  time  that  they 
earned  it,  he  himself  would  have  been  lost.  But  God  with 
much  long-suffering  restrains  his  wrath  against  sinners,  "and 
[he  does  so]  that  he  might  make  known  [by  calling  and  justi- 
fication] the  riches  of  his  glory  on  the  vessels  of  mercy  [the 
elect],  which  he  had  afore  prepared  unto  [eternal]  glory." 
They  are  not  vessels  of  favor,  but  of  ''mercy,"  in  that  he 
showed  them  mercy.  These,  it  is  said,  "he  prepared  afore." 
Paul  is  doubtless  referring  to  viii.  29  in  the  word  "afore." 

Men,  being  sinners,  have  no  rights  remaining  before  God ; 
in  his  justice  he  might  destroy  them  all.  But  he  chooses  to 
save  some  sinners  in  the  exercise  of  mercy,  and  for  the  time 
restrains  his  wrath  toward  the  rest.  These  two  verses  bear 
on  the  idea  of  his  sovereignty  in  showing  how  he  exercises  it ; 
the  next  one  with  the  quotations  following  shows  toward  whom 
he  exercises  it. 

24,  "Even  us  [the  "vessels  of  mercy"],  whom  he  hath 
called."  This  is  his  own  sovereign  call.  The  rest  heard  the  gos- 
pel, but  were  not  called  by  him.  Unless  the  word  has  this  spe- 
cial meaning  here  and  in  i.  6 ;  viii.  28,  30,  it  has  no  meaning. 
The  "  called  "  were  found  not  among  the  Jews  only,  but  also 
among  the  Gentiles.  This  is  by  no  means  the  ultimate,  but 
only  the  present,  exhibition  of  his  sovereignty.  Paul  keeps 
the  two  classes  separate  here,  for  he  still  has  God's  dealing 
with  the  Jew  in  mind,  to  whom  the  thought  returns  exclusively 
at  verse  31  below.  The  promise  of  salvation  was  not  condi- 
tioned on  nationality,  but  is  "  of  him  that  calleth  "  (verse  1 1 
above)  and  may  extend  to  all  nations:  "Even  us,  .  .  .  not 


178  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS      (IX.  25-29) 

of  the  Jews  only,  but  also  of  the  Gentiles."  He  supports  this 
statement  chiastically  from  the  Scriptures. 

25,  26*  These  quotations  from  Hosea  ii.  23  and  i.  10  are 
combined,  and  predict  the  call  of  Gentiles.  The  phrase  "  and 
it  shall  come  to  pass  "  (verse  26)  is  not  Paul's,  but  the  pro- 
phet's. "  Call "  and  *'  called  "  do  not  mean  invited  or  named, 
but  called  with  the  call  (verse  11  above  and  viii.  30).  The 
"place  "  is  indefinite,  and  means  any  place  in  the  world.  The 
prophecy  originally  seems  to  refer  to  the  ten  tribes,  but  as 
they  had  been  excluded  from  the  nation  and  were  practically 
heathen,  Paul  refers  to  them  as  a  type  of  the  call  of  the  Gen- 
tiles. 

27-29.  These  verses  look  at  the  case  of  Israel  as  predicted 
in  Isaiah  to  show  that  the  mass  would  be  reprobated  and  only 
a  "remnant"  saved.  The  first  quotation  is  from  Isaiah  x. 
22,  23,  on  which  Paul  puts  a  gloss,  representing  the  prophet 
as  "crying"  in  alarm  and  wonder,  thus  softening  the  stem 
prediction  that,  while  Israel  may  be  countless  in  number,  only 
the  elect  few  will  be  subjects  of  grace.  "  For,"  continues 
Isaiah,  the  Lord  "will  finish  the  work,  and  cut  it  short  in 
righteousness."  The  righteousness  is  that  of  Jehovah's  judg- 
ment or  wrath  upon  Israel's  waywardness.  The  Revised 
Version  makes  some  large  changes  in  this  verse :  "  For  the 
Lord  will  execute  his  word  upon  the  earth,  finishing  it  and 
cutting  it  short."  With  either  reading  the  meaning  is  clear. 
Summary  and  severe  judgments  were  to  fall  on  Israel,  and  of 
such  a  character  that  only  a  remnant  would  be  left  to  know 
God's  grace.  The  original  reference  in  Isaiah  was  to  the  re- 
turn from  the  captivity ;  but  Paul  sees  the  apphcability  of  the 
prophecy  to  his  own  time ;  it  may  come  in  force  again  in  the 
future. 

The  apostle  makes  one  more  quotation  (Isa.  i.  9),  that 
brings  his  teaching  about  God's  sovereign  and  electing  grace 
to  a  startling  climax.     But  for  the  divine  interference  Israel 


(IX.  30-33)     ISRAEL'S  REJECTION  CONSIDERED  179 

would  have  become  as  Sodom  and  been  made  like  unto  Go- 
morrah. Depravity  would  have  run  its  course  to  this  tragic 
end.  But  God  "left  unto  us  a  very  small  remnant,"  which 
"  small  remnant "  Paul  calls  a  "  seed  "  in  quoting  from  the 
Septuagint.  The  cities  of  the  plain  were  obHterated  for  their 
sin,  and  none  were  left  to  revive  them ;  and  so  it  would  have 
been  in  Israel's  case  had  not  God  "left"  (spared)  some. 
Israel  has  nothing  of  which  to  complain.  God's  election  de- 
stroyed none ;  it  is  the  sole  reason  why  any  were  spared.  The 
covenant  name  Jehovah  is  not  used  here,  but  "  Lord  of  Saba- 
oth,"  or  of  hosts  or  armies,  which  suggests  his  sovereignty. 

30-33*  "What  shall  we  say  then?"  (See  (4)  above.) 
What  are  the  facts  so  far  as  this  discussion  is  concerned,  the 
facts  as  seen  wherever  the  gospel  has  gone?  Not  that  the 
Word  of  God  has  failed,  but  that  the  prophecy  has  now  be- 
come history,  to  be  seen  in  history.  First,  some  Gentiles,  who 
were  making  no  effort  (reminding  the  reader  of  verse  16  above, 
"  it  is  not  of  him  that  runneth  ")  after  righteousness,  reached  it. 
They  did  not  will,  but  God  did.  Since  these  Gentiles  had  no 
works,  God  bestowed  righteousness  upon  them,  that  is,  they 
had  a  righteousness  of  faith.  The  article  "the"  before 
"  Gentiles  "  in  the  King  James  version  is  an  error,  strangely 
repeated  in  the  Revised  Version.  Paul,  with  the  fact  of  elec- 
tion in  his  mind,  could  not  and  he  did  not  write  this  illogical 
"  the."  That  some  Gentiles,  those  who  believed,  were  right- 
eous, was  attested  by  their  living.  They  had  abandoned  idola- 
try, worshiped  God,  and  claimed  no  merit  for  themselves  (Phil, 
iii.  3). 

A  second  fact  in  accord  with  the  argument  above  was  (and 
is)  that  Israel  as  a  whole,  though  following  the  (Mosaic)  law 
of  righteousness,  the  law  that  is  connected  with  righteousness, 
did  not  attain  to  that  law.  Omit  "  of  righteousness  "  in  the 
second  instance.  Israel  attained  to  the  letter  of  the  law,  but 
not  to  the  acquittal  from  sin.     Gentiles,  who  willed  not,  at- 


180  THE  EPISTLE    TO   THE  ROMANS      (IX.  30-33) 

tained ;  Israel,  who  willed  for  themselves,  failed,  for  salvation  is 
not  of  man's  will.  Some  take  "  law  "  here  in  the  sense  of  rule, 
a  rule  of  moral  and  religious  life  that  would  win  righteousness. 

That  Israel  had  not  become  righteous  was  plain  to  every 
one,  and  thus  facts  in  both  directions  testify  to  the  correctness 
of  Paul's  logic  and  the  aptness  of  his  quotations  from  the 
Scriptures.  It  was  said  that  Gentiles  would  be  saved,  and 
Gentiles  are  saved.  It  was  said  that  the  mass  of  Israel  would 
be  rejected,  and  so  it  is,  and  God  is  just  in  it  all  and  his  Word 
has  not  failed. 

"Wherefore?"  Why  did  Israel  not  reach  righteousness? 
Paul  does  not  say  they  failed  because  they  were  non-elect. 
Election  accounts  for  the  saved,  but  non-election  does  not  ac- 
count for  the  lost.  The  comprehensive  reason  for  the  latter 
is  sin,  and  the  essence  of  sin  is  self-will,  self-will  even  in  seek- 
ing God.  These  Jews  took  their  own  way  of  being  reconciled 
to  God.  They  did  not  even  seek  him  by  the  works  of  the  law, 
but  *'  as  it  were "  by  works  of  the  law.  They  decided  for 
themselves  what  the  works  should  be  and  so  had  flesh  works. 
In  their  self-will  they  practically  denied  God. 

It  is  at  this  point  that  Paul  passes  from  the  sovereignty  of 
God  to  the  responsibility  of  man.  The  two  cannot  be  har- 
monized in  the  human  understanding,  except  as  the  Scriptures 
harmonize  them ;  that  is,  by  insisting  on  and  holding  to  both. 
The  Scriptures  and  reason  assert  the  absolute  sovereignty  of 
God,  and  Scripture  and  the  human  conscience  assert  with 
equal  force  the  responsibility  of  man ;  so  that  the  practical 
error  arises  when  either  one  of  these  is  denied  or  when  one  is 
explained  in  a  way  to  exclude  the  other.  It  must  also  be  re- 
membered that,  while  man  cannot  save  himself,  moral  inabiHty 
does  not  relieve  from  responsibility.  Man's  inabiHty  Hes  in^ 
his  sinful  natiure  (viii.  7),  and  God  cannot  be  made  responsi- 
ble for  sin.  The  sinner's  inability  to  do  right,  to  do  God's 
will,  is  the  acme  of  his  sin. 


(IX.  30-33)     ISRAEL'S  REJECTION  CONSIDERED  181 

A  world  of  sin  is  a  world  of  confusion.  Sin  introduced 
confusion  between  God  and  man,  and  confusion  cannot  be 
explained.  The  real  difficulty  between  God's  absolute  sover- 
eignty and  man's  responsibility  is  metaphysical  and  not  bibli- 
cal. How  can  there  be  one  sovereign  free  will  and  other  free 
wills?  And  when  Fritzsche  says  that  Paul's  view  is  "abso- 
lutely contradictory,"  he  is  virtually  demanding  that  Paul  cease 
preaching  and  turn  philosopher  to  solve  the  insoluble.  But 
Paul  leaves  the  question  where  he  found  it,  and  goes  on  now 
in  this  and  the  next  chapter  to  show  that  Israel's  failure  was 
their  own  fault. 

;  "They  stumbled  at  that  stumbling-stone."  The  "for"  is 
probably  not  genuine,  but  it  shows  the  correct  relation  of  the 
sentences.  They  failed  to  believe  because  the  Christ  came 
in  a  way  which  their  works  disqualified  them  to  approve 
(I  Pet.  ii.  7,8). 

"As  it  is  written."  The  quotation  is  a  combination  of 
Isaiah  viii.  14  and  xxviii.  16.  That  which  was  applicable  in 
the  prophet's  time  Paul  sees  to  be  applicable  also  in  his  time. 
God's  enemies  stumbled  then  because  of  him ;  they  stumble 
now  at  his  gift  of  Christ.  At  the  same  time  Christ  is  a  secu- 
rity for  him  that  beheveth  on  him.  The  "  whosoever  "  in  the 
King  James  version  is  not  genuine  and  mars  the  sense.  Paul 
is  quoting  this  Scripture  not  to  show  the  universality  of  salva- 
tion, which  the  word  "  whosoever "  would  suggest,  but  in 
proof  that  the  Jews  failed  by  lack  of  faith.  The  word  "  be- 
heveth "  carries  the  main  idea.  He  that  beheveth  shall  not 
make  haste  to  some  other  refuge  for  salvation,  or,  what  is  the 
same,  he  shall  not  be  put  to  shame  by  trusting  in  this  stone. 

The  substance  of  the  chapter  is  that,  in  spite  of  Israel's  re- 
jection, in  spite  of  the  present  mixed  following  of  Jews  and 
Gentiles  as  the  Lord's  people,  God's  Word  has  not  failed,  for 
God  never  pledged  away  his  sovereignty  in  it,  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  predicted  that  salvation  turned  on  his  will  and  call. 


CHAPTER   X 

Israel's  failure  their  own  fault 

Though  God  did  not  elect  the  mass  of  Israel  for  salvation 
at  this  time,  their  present  rejection  is  not  to  be  explained  by 
his  withholding  grace,  which  was  freely  offered  them,  but 
by  their  sinful  lack  of  discernment  (Luke  xii.  56 ;  xix.  44 ; 
xxi.  24). 

The  chapter  contains  four  topics:  (i)  Israel  failed  to  see 
that  Christ  was  the  end  of  the  law  (verses  1-4) ;  (2)  the  free 
character  of  salvation  (verses  5-1 1) ;  (3)  its  universal  charac- 
ter (verses  12-18) ;  and  (4)  they  failed  to  see  that  all  this,  as 
well  as  their  own  rejection,  was  the  prediction  of  their  own 
Scriptures  (verses  19-21). 

i^  "  Brethren,  my  heart's  desire,"  etc.  "  Good  pleasure  " 
is  preferable  to  the  word  "desire."  It  will  be  noticed  that 
each  one  of  the  three  chapters  in  this  theodicy  begins  with  a 
warm  expression  of  the  apostle's  own  feeling.  He  will  not 
let  it  be  forgotten,  in  bringing  these  heavy  charges  against 
those  of  his  own  blood,  that  he  is  writing  in  pity  and  not  in 
anger.  He  is  not  an  enemy  of  Israel.  Moreover,  this  prayer, 
as  well  as  the  sentiment  beginning  the  ninth  chapter,  could 
not  have  been  entertained  by  the  apostle  if  he  at  the  same 
time  considered  Israel's  case  hopeless.  As  Bengel  says  on 
this  verse,  "  Paul  would  not  have  prayed  had  they  been  alto- 
gether reprobate."     If  he  prayed  "  that  they  might  be  saved  " 

182 


(X.  2-4)   ISRAEL'S  FAILURE    THEIR   OWN  FAULT         183 

he  must  have  believed  the  possibility  of  their  salvation  (2  Cor. 
iii.  16).     In  the  next  chapter  he  confidently  predicts  it  (xi.  26). 

2»  It  was  because  Paul  saw  Israel's  zeal  for  God  that  he 
was  so  sohcitous  for  them.  And  yet  zeal  does  not  imply  a 
right  heart  nor  acceptance  with  God.  Their  zeal  was  not  di- 
rected by  "  knowledge/'  not  regulated  by  spiritual  discernment. 
They  had  the  means  of  knowledge,  but  not  the  knowledge. 
This  little  phrase,  "not  according  to  knowledge,"  is  the  key 
to  the  chapter. 

3»  "  For  they,  being  ignorant."  Here  are  given  the  contents 
of  their  ignorance :  "  ignorant  of  God's  righteousness  [by  faith 
in  Christ],  and  going  about  [seeking]  to  establish  their  own 
righteousness  [by  works  of  law,  in  zeal  for  the  latter,  they] 
have  not  submitted  themselves  "  to  the  former.  Here  the  two 
kinds  of  righteousness  are  set  in  contrast.  These  two  are  the 
sum  of  all  on  earth,  and  they  are  mutually  exclusive  in  the 
human  heart.  The  Jews  at  this  time  were  not  unacquainted 
with  the  righteousness  of  God,  but  they  were  "ignorant" 
of  it. 

4.  "  For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law."  The  Revised  Ver- 
sion retains  both  articles.  "  End  "  means  termination.  It  is 
true  that  he  is  also  the  aim  and  the  fulfilment  of  the  law. 
Tholuck  combines  the  two  ideas  of  termination  and  aim ;  Al- 
ford  stands  for  the  latter.  But  the  sharp  contrast  here,  as  well 
as  the  (original)  word,  requires  the  meaning  termination.  The 
law  is  no  longer  a  means  of  righteousness. 

Sanday  surely  errs  in  saying  that  this  verse  is  a  proof  that 
the  Jews  were  "wrong"  in  not  submitting  themselves  to  the 
righteousness  of  God.  It  is  not  a  question  of  right  or 
wrong,  but  of  fact.  The  Jews  claimed  that  in  following  the 
law  they  were  submitting  to  God,  for  he  gave  the  law.  No, 
says  Paul;  in  so  doing  you  are  not  submitting  to  the  right- 
eousness of  God.  "  For  Christ  [whom  God  gave  and  you  re- 
ject] is  the  end  of  the  law  for  [with  a  view  to]  righteousness 


184  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (X.  5-7) 

to  every  one  that  believeth."  The  Jew's  system  was  one  of 
doing;  but  God's  was  one  of  beHeving,  one  of  grace.  Law 
and  grace  are  mutually  exclusive  and  antagonistic  systems 
(iv.  4,  5  ;  xi.  6).  Because  the  Jew  held  to  law  he  was  not  in 
subjection  to  God.  The  proof  that  he  was  not  is  this  great 
principle  of  grace  recorded  in  this  fourth  verse. 

5^  That  Christ  ends  the  law  in  making  nothing  but  faith 
necessary  to  righteousness  is  confirmed  in  the  further  contrast 
of  the  two  systems.  (See  (2)  above.)  Moses  describes  the 
righteousness  of  the  law  as  one  of  doing— "the  man  that 
doeth  those  things,"  etc.  The  point  made  here  is  not  that  no 
man  can  do  those  things  prescribed  by  Moses,  but  that,  in  case 
he  did  do  them,  it  would  be  his  **  own  righteousness  "  and  not 
God's,  which  is  next  described  at  length. 

6^  ?♦  "  But  the  righteousness  which  is  of  faith  speaketh  on 
this  wise."  Paul  does  not  say  that  Moses  describes  this  right- 
eousness ;  he  does  not  set  Moses  against  Moses.  He  says  the 
righteousness  itself  speaks ;  it  is  self-descriptive. 

It  must  be  carefully  noted  what  Paul  is  after.  The  points 
are  just  two :  first,  that  the  Jew's  intense  religious  zeal  in  de- 
votion to  the  law,  a  zeal  that  touches  the  apostle's  heart,  is, 
after  all,  not  God's  righteousness,  but  in  flat  contradiction  to 
it.  This  is  seen  in  the  nature  or  character  of  the  two.  A 
faith-righteousness  in  Christ  must  end  law-righteousness,  for 
Moses  describes  the  latter  as  one  of  doing.  But  now  arises 
just  at  this  point  a  second  question.  Admitting,  as  the  Jew 
would,  that  the  two  are  antagonistic,  he  would  not  admit  that 
the  righteousness  in  Christ  was  genuine ;  he  would  make  that 
claim  for  his  own.  Hence,  beginning  at  this  sixth  verse,  Paul 
not  only  completes  his  contrast  between  the  righteousness  by 
law  and  the  righteousness  by  faith,  but  to  the  end  of  the  sec- 
tion at  verse  11  adds  the  other  argument,  that  nothing  but 
righteousness  by  faith  is  God's. 

"Say  not  in  thy  heart."     This  is  a  quotation  from  Deu- 


(X.  6,  7)   ISRAEL'S  FAILURE    THEIR   OWN  FAULT         1S5 

teronomy  xxx.  n-14,  with  Paul's  interjected  explanations  by- 
means  of  the  equating  phrase  "that  is."  The  difficulty  that 
stands  here  is  that  Paul  takes  words  that  Moses  seems  to  use 
of  the  law,  and  makes  them  descriptive  of  the  righteousness  of 
faith.  Two  considerations  relieve  the  difficulty.  First,  the 
contrast  is  not  between  the  law  and  faith,  but  between  the 
righteousness  proceeding  from  the  two.  The  law  bears  testi- 
mony to  both  kinds.  The  righteousness  of  faith  is  witnessed 
by  the  law  and  the  prophets  (iii.  21,  22).  The  second  consid- 
eration is  that  Paul  interprets  this  passage  in  the  original 
Mosaic  intent  of  it.  This  intent  after  the  gospel  came  was  not 
difficult  to  see.  The  thirtieth  chapter  of  Deuteronomy  refers 
to  the  ultimate  gathering  of  all  Israel.  Moses  promises  that 
in  the  future  God  will  circumcise  the  "  heart "  of  Israel.  He 
further  says,  "  If  thou  turn  unto  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all 
thine  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul"  (Deut.  xxx.  10).  The  very 
next  verse  introduces  our  quotation :  "  For  this  commandment 
which  I  command  thee  this  day,  it  is  not  hidden  from  thee, 
neither  is  it  far  off.  It  is  not  in  heaven,"  etc.  The  chapter 
itself  speaks  of  both  kinds  of  righteousness ;  it  mentions  not 
only  the  "commandments,"  but  "  this  commandment."  This 
difference  between  singular  and  plural  must  not  be  overlooked. 
It  speaks  both  of  keeping  the  commandments  and  also  of 
turning  to  the  Lord  with  the  heart.  The  gospel  gave  Paul  the 
key  to  the  latter,  and  he  quotes  the  passage  as  not  applicable 
to  the  righteousness  of  the  law,  but  descriptive  only  of  the 
gospel.  When,  therefore,  Sanday  imphes  that  "words  used 
by  Moses  of  the  law"  are  applied  by  Paul  to  the  gospel  "as 
against  the  law"  ("Com.  on  Rom.,"  p.  288),  and  denies  to 
Paul  a  "  true  interpretation "  of  this  and  similar  passages 
(p.  306,  id.),  the  only  question  is,  which  is  the  safer  expositor 
of  the  Old  Testament,  the  professor  or  the  apostle? 

The  righteousness  of  the  law  is  defined  in  terms  that  imply 
doing.     The  passage  quoted  here  by  Paul  defines  the  right- 


186  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (X.  8-10) 

eousness  of  faith  in  terms  which  shut  out  all  doing.  No  man 
need  attempt  the  impossible  thing,  of  ascending  to  heaven, 
which  means  to  bring  Christ  down ;  he  has  already  come. 
And  no  one  need  go  over  the  sea  or,  what  is  the  same  thing 
descend  to  its  depths,  the  abyss,  to  bring  Christ  again  from 
the  dead;  he  is  already  raised.  God's  "command"  (Deut. 
XXX.  11),  his  work,  is  not  "hidden  from  thee";  it  is  already 
done  (John  vi.  29). 

8^  "But  what  saith  it?"  This  little  question  belongs  not 
to  the  quotation,  but  is  Paul's,  and  serves  both  to  pass  from 
the  negative  to  the  positive  side  of  the  description  of  true 
righteousness  and  to  call  attention  a  second  time  to  it.  It 
declares  that  God's  righteousness  is  not  distant  and  difficult, 
but  "the  word  [Moses  did  not  say  "commandments"]  is 
nigh  thee  [like  the  air  of  heaven],  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy 
heart :  that  is,  the  word  of  faith  [referred  to  in  Moses],  which 
we  [apostles]  preach."  It  is  a  word  or  command  not  for  doing, 
but  for  believing. 

9,  JO*  These  two  verses  give  the  contents  of  the  "word  of 
faith."  "That"  is  equivalent  neither  to  "in  order  that"  nor 
to  "because."  The  first  is  forbidden  by  the  original  word 
{orC)^  and  the  second  in  that  there  is  no  need  to  prove  the 
express  assertion  that  "  the  word  is  nigh  thee."  Paul  would 
not  attempt  to  prove  Scripture  by  his  own  assertion ;  but  he 
may  tell  what  it  means.  This  "  word  "  by  the  preaching  of  it 
is  brought  to  the  mouth  and  the  heart  of  the  sinner  as  the 
atmosphere  comes  to  the  lungs.  Man  does  not  make  it;  he 
breathes  it  and  lives. 

Since  Christ  has  already  come  down  from  above,  has  died, 
and  has  been  raised  from  the  dead,  nothing  remains  for  the 
Jew  or  for  any  one  else  to  do  but  to  confess  it  with  his  mouth 
and  believe  it  in  his  heart.  Paul  specifies  the  vital  element  in 
Christian  faith,  "that  God  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead." 
He  was  raised  for  our  justification  (iv.  25).     The  faith  that 


(X.  II)     ISRAELS  FAILURE    THEIR   OWN  FAULT         187 

leaves  this  out,  although  it  may  accept  everything  else  in  the 
Christian's  creed,  is  not  Christian  and  is  not  saving.  The 
Jew's  "  doing  "  denied  it.  The  "  for  "  of  the  tenth  verse  does 
not  introduce  a  proof,  but  an  analytic  explanation,  of  the  sal- 
vation just  mentioned — "  thou  shalt  be  saved."  If  one  beheves 
with  the  heart,  that  belief  brings  him  into  righteousness,  right 
standing  before  God,  and  if  now  he  confesses  openly  in  his 
life  his  adherence  to  Jesus,  that  confession  leads  on  to  the 
final  salvation.  Thus  salvation  is  resolved  into  its  two  ele- 
ments, a  heart  trust  that  provokes  a  true  confession  of  his 
name.  And  yet  the  two  are  one ;  for  confession  without  be- 
lief is  either  self-deception  or  hypocrisy,  while  trust  without 
confession  may  be  cowardice  (John  xix.  38). 

It  sounds  a  Httle  odd,  in  view  of  Paul's  words,  "with  the 
mouth  confession  is  made,"  to  hear  Sanday  say  the  confession 
"is  made  in  baptism."  Paul  links  baptism  with  faith  (Col. 
ii.  12). 

If  the  order  of  the  words  "  mouth  "  and  "  heart "  in  verse 
9  is  reversed  to  "  heart "  and  "  mouth  "  in  verse  10,  this  occurs 
because  in  the  former  Paul  is  following  Moses'  order,  who 
presents  the  "  word  "  rather  as  a  creed  and  climactically,  not 
only  in  thy  mouth,  but  in  thy  very  heart.  The  tenth  verse 
presents  the  words  in  the  order  of  experience. 

n*  This  quotation  from  Isaiah  xxviii.  16,  with  the  expan- 
sion of  "  he  "  into  "  whosoever,"  clearly  imphed  in  the  original, 
is  in  proof  of  the  last  verse  that  salvation  is  by  faith.  The  two 
words  about  beheving  and  confessing  in  the  last  verse  are  here 
reduced  to  one,  "  beheveth."  (For  "  ashamed  "  see  on  ix.  2>z) 
Perhaps  none  but  an  apostle's  eyes  could  see  salvation  by  faith 
in  the  quotation  above  from  Deuteronomy  xxx.  But  we  must 
think  the  zealous  Jews  either  obstinate  or  blind  that  could  not 
see  it  in  this  verse  in  Isaiah,  were  it  not  for  the  same  lack  of 
perception  attending  men  still.  Salvation  by  works,  even  in 
evangehcal  circles,  is  pursued  to-day  by  all  such  as  cannot 


188  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS       (X.  12-14) 

unquestioningly,  like  a  little  child  (Mark  x.  15),  accept  this 
same  word  in  its  sublime  simplicity. 

12*  "  For  there  is  no  difference."  As  Israel  failed  to  per- 
ceive the  character  of  the  righteousness  offered  by  God,  but 
excluded  by  their  own  righteousness  of  works,  so  they  neces- 
sarily failed  to  see  the  universality  of  God's  righteousness. 
Works  are  not  suited  to  sinful  men  (iv.  14,  15).  It  is  with 
this  failure  that  Paul  now  deals.  (See  (3)  at  the  head  of  the 
chapter.)  He  moves  off  at  the  word  "  whosoever  "  in  the  last 
verse,  and  explains  it  in  this  one.  As  there  is  "no  difference  " 
among  men,  Jew  or  Gentile,  in  their  sinfulness  (iii.  22,  23),  so 
there  is  no  difference  in  God's  mercy  toward  all,  Jew  or  Gen- 
tile. The  "  call "  of  faith  from  the  heart  of  any  man  is  not 
merely  answered,  but  richly  answered. 

t3»  "  For,  Whosoever,"  etc.  This,  from  Joel  ii.  32,  is  the 
scriptural  proof  of  the  universality  of  God's  mercy.  The 
quotation  is  very  much  like  that  in  verse  1 1  above,  but  there 
is  a  difference  in  use :  there  it  confirms  the  believing,  here  the 
universality.  Hence  here  in  the  original  it  is  not  simply  who- 
soever, but  every  one  whosoever.  The  apostle  seems  fond  of 
repeating  the  noble  gospel  sentiment  that  beheving  prayer 
from  any  heart  of  man  receives  an  answer  rich  in  righteous- 
ness. 

J4*  "  How  then  shall  they  call,"  etc.  With  these  verses 
begins  an  argument  extending  through  several  verses,  to  prove 
from  another  point  of  view  the  universality  of  the  gospel.  If 
this  gospel  is  general  and  designed  for  all,  if  its  language  is 
that  "  whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be 
saved"  (verse  13),  it  is  then  inevitable  from  the  word  "call" 
that  the  gospel  must  be  preached  everywhere.  If  such  gen- 
eral preaching  is  predicted  (verse  15)  and  has  been  accom- 
pHshed,  there  is  thereby  evidence  of  the  gospel's  universal 
character ;  and  if  it  is  found  that  Israel  has  heard  this  world- 
wide gospel  and  has  not  beUeved  it^  the  responsibility  of  their 


(X.  15)     ISRAELS  FAILURE    THEIR   OWN  FAULT         189 

rejection  is  upon  themselves.  Says  Gifford,  "  From  the  nature 
of  the  salvation  just  described  (verse  13),  it  follows  that  the 
gospel  must  be  preached  to  all  without  distinction  "  ("  Speaker's 
Com.,"  i?i  loc).  If  the  universal  condition  of  salvation  is  to 
call  on  the  Lord,  only  the  general  spread  of  the  gospel  can 
make  such  a  call  possible. 

By  successive  steps  Paul  argues  from  Joel's  cardinal  words, 
"  Whosoever  shall  call,"  to  the  sending  out  of  the  preachers. 
Men  cannot  call  on  him  in  whom  they  have  not  believed, 
and,  to  be  sure,  they  cannot  believe  in  him  of  whom  they  never 
heard.  And  how  can  they  ever  hear  without  a  preacher? 
The  spread  of  the  gospel  is  dependent  on  the  living  messen- 
ger. The  sending  forth  of  Bibles  is  not  sufficient ;  Israel  had 
them,  but  did  not  profit  by  them.  The  Ethiopian  eunuch, 
earnest  man  though  he  was,  did  not  understand  even  the 
luminous  fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah  until  the  preacher  sent 
to  him  opened  the  Scripture  for  him  (Acts  viii.  26-40). 

J5.  "And  how  shall  they  preach,  except  they  be  sent," 
sent  by  God?  The  first  heralds  who  formally  and  definitely 
went  out  either  to  the  Jews  or  to  the  Gentiles  were  commis- 
sioned by  the  Holy  Spirit  (Acts  ii. ;  x. ;  xiii.  2-4).  There  is 
no  clearer  passage  for  the  call  into  the  ministry  than  this: 
"  How  shall  they  preach,  except  they  be  sent?  "  (Gal.  i.  15, 
16.)  No  matter  how  well  a  man  may  be  qualified  otherwise, 
if  he  is  not  divinely  "sent"  he  is  a  profane  intruder.  No 
matter  how  humble  and  lacking  in  brilliance,  if  he  has  this 
credential  he  need  not  be  discouraged.  The  Father  sends  the 
Son,  and  the  Son  sends  the  preachers  (John  xvii.  18). 

Paul  has  now  argued  backward  from  the  nature  of  the  gos- 
pel, which  demands  that  men  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord, 
to  that  which  this  call  implies,  a  general  sending  forth  of  minis- 
ters. That  such  would  be  sent  forth  is  confirmed  by  a  passage 
from  Isaiah  Hi.  7  (see  Nah.  i.  15):  "How  beautiful  are  the 
feet  of  them  [how  welcome  is  their  coming]  that  preach  ,  ,  . 


190  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS        (X.  i6,  17) 

peace,  that  [not  "and"]  bring  glad  tidings  of  good  things!" 
There  was  a  partial  fulfilment  of  Isaiah's  words  in  the  return 
from  the  captivity  which  the  prophet  foresaw.  Paul  sees  a 
deeper  meaning,  which  points  to  the  mission  of  the  gospel 
messengers,  and  now  his  argument  so  far  is  complete.  A  gos- 
pel intended  for  all  requires  ministers  sent  to  all,  and  this  har- 
monizes with  the  prediction  that  they  would  be  sent. 

J6*  "  But  they  have  not  all  obeyed  the  gospel  "—the  "  glad 
tidings  "  mentioned  above.  Paul  restrains  himself,  as  in  iii.  3. 
He  might  have  said,  "  How  few  believed! "  This  general  dis- 
belief, however,  does  not  disprove  that  the  "  sent "  messengers 
were  God's.  It  actually  confirms  their  authority.  For  Isaiah 
foresaw  this  unbelief  and  predicted  it  in  the  sad  words,  "  Lord, 
who  hath  believed  our  report  ?  "  or,  "  Who  hath  beheved  thy 
message  heard  from  us?"  The  prophet  (Isa.  liii.  i)  is  now 
speaking  of  the  Messianic  times,  as  the  connection  shows 
clearly.  Paul  says  *'they"  have  not  obeyed.  The  word  is 
general,  but  he  has  Israel  in  mind,  whom  he  soon  mentions. 
Israel's  rejection  of  the  gospel  is  a  proof  of  its  truthfulness. 
Not  only  the  few  who  in  all  time  have  beheved  revelation, 
but  the  many  who  reject  it,  are  a  confirmation  of  its  divinity. 
A  gospel  universally  beheved  would  not  be  God's.  Jesus 
said,  "  I  am  come  in  my  Father's  name,  and  ye  receive  me 
not:  if  another  shall  come  in  his  own  name,  him  ye  will  re- 
ceive "  (John  V.  43).  And  ever  so  God's  messenger  is  known 
by  his  general  rejection. 

t7,  "So  then  faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the 
Word  of  God."  Paul  is  not  referring  to  the  act  of  listening 
as  the  source  of  faith.  Listening  is  itself  faith,  and  all  men 
hsten  to  something.  Saving  faith,  of  which  he  is  speaking, 
comes  from  heeding  saving  doctrine ;  this  is  his  vital  point. 
This  verse  can  be  paraphrased  thus :  Genuine  faith  comes  by 
a  message  heard  (from  us),  and  the  message  heard  (is)  by 
means  of  the  Word  of  God,  the  Word  given  the  messenger, 


(X.  1 8,  19)     ISRAELS  FAILURE   THEIR  OWN  FAULT       191 

the  gospel.  The  "  Word  of  God,"  or,  as  some  read  here,  "  of 
Christ,"  does  not  mean  his  command  to  preach. 

But  why  does  Paul  utter  the  words  of  this  verse?  It  is  the 
logical  conclusion  of  everything  from  verse  13  above.  The 
"call"  that  brings  salvation  demands  faith,  and  this  faith 
comes  from  the  Word  of  God  sent  through  his  messengers. 
But,  while  this  conclusion  looks  back  to  the  beginning  of  this 
little  section,  it  is  drawn  directly  from  the  quotation  imme- 
diately preceding,  which  itself  comprehends  what  has  gone 
before. 

18.  It  being  now  shown  that  the  gospel  which  is  necessary 
to  faith  has  been  universally  given,  could  it  be  that  they  who 
have  not  obeyed  (verse  16)  did  not  hear?  "But  I  say,  Have 
they  not  heard?  "  The  answer  to  this  is  a  quotation  from 
Psalm  xix.  4.  The  quotation  refers  to  the  silent  but  effective 
message  of  the  stars :  "  Their  sound  went  into  all  the  earth, 
and  their  words  unto  the  ends  of  the  [inhabited]  world."  Paul 
is  not  quoting  these  words  in  proof  that  men  have  heard.  In 
the  verses  immediately  preceding  there  is  already  sufficient 
proof  of  the  opportunity  to  hear.  By  quoting  the  psalmist  it 
is  beautifully  suggested  how  vain  would  be  the  excuse  that 
men  have  not  heard.  The  very  stars  declare  God's  glory  the 
world  around  (i.  20),  and  how  much  more  must  the  preachers 
mentioned  in  verse  15  above!  Paul  in  using  the  psalmist's 
words  does  not  mention  him,  and  uses  no  formula  of  quota- 
tion. If  men  have  not  believed  it  is  not  because  they  have 
not  heard.  The  opportunity  of  hearing  was  as  wide  as  the 
star-studded  heavens.  The  beheving  was  limited  to  a  "  few  " 
(Matt.  vii.  14). 

t9.  "  But  I  say,  Did  not  Israel  know?  "  For  emphasis  Paul 
repeats  the  words  "but  I  say"  of  verse  18.  "Israel"  is  not 
in  contrast  with  others  intended  in  the  preceding  verse,  for 
Paul  has  had  Israel  in  mind  all  along.  The  whole  chapter, 
as  is  shown  at  its  beginning,  refers  primarily  to  nobody  else. 


192  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS       (X.  20, 21) 

He  names  them  now  because  the  very  word  "  Israel "  ought 
to  answer  the  question  in  which  it  occurs.  Know  what?  The 
gospel  or  its  universahty  ?  Both  ;  for  he  who  knows  the  gos- 
pel at  all  very  soon  comes  to  know  that  it  is  for  all.  In  the 
third  verse  he  denied  that  Israel  knew :  "  For  they,  being  ig- 
norant of  God's  righteousness."  If  he  here  affirms  that  they 
did  know  he  merely  pronounces  the  former  a  wilful,  guilty  ig- 
norance. (Cf.  John  vii.  28  with  viii.  19.)  The  contradiction 
is  only  in  form. 

He  answers  the  question,  "  Did  not  Israel  know?  "  by  three 
Scripture  quotations.  "  First  Moses,"  away  back  in  his  day, 
predicted  the  faith  of  the  Gentiles,  who  were  "  no  people,"  and 
the  guilty  ignorance  of  Israel ;  because  a  "  foolish  "  nation,  one 
void  of  understanding,  would  see  the  truth  of  the  gospel  to 
which  Israel  was  blind,  and  embrace  it,  and  thus  "  anger " 
Israel  (Deut.  xxxii.  21).  If  the  Gentile  perceived,  it  is  the 
Jew's  own  fault  that  he  did  not. 

20^  "  But  Isaiah  is  very  bold  "  in  what  he  utters  against  Is- 
rael (Isa.  Ixv.  i).  Where  Israel  was  groping  and  failing  to 
find  the  Messiah,  those  who  sought  him  not  clearly  discerned 
him.  How  can  Israel  be  excused  for  ignorance  of  a  world- 
wide gospel,  when  even  the  heathen  discovered  it? 

2t»  The  third  quotation,  immediately  following  the  one 
above  from  Isaiah,  brings  the  matter  of  their  guilt  to  a  climax. 
God  never  ceased  to  plead  with  them ;  but  they  were  "  dis- 
obedient and  gainsaying."  But  even  in  this  rebelHous  state  he 
calls  them  "  people,"  a  hopeful  word  with  which  to  begin  the 
next  chapter. 


CHAPTER   XI 

ISRAEL'S    FAILURE    NOT    COMPLETE 

This  chapter  from  the  historical  point  of  view  is  logically- 
necessary.  The  Old  Testament  clearly  promises  Israel  head- 
ship or  leadership  in  the  world's  worship.  This  primacy  they 
had  held  from  the  days  of  Moses  until  the  days  of  Paul,  when 
the  latter  became  the  chief  instrument  in  transferring  it  to 
"another  nation"  (Matt.  xxi.  43),  composed  of  elect  persons 
called  from  all  peoples  (i  Pet.  ii.  9,  10).  This  promise  of 
headship  was  made  to  Israel  not  on  the  ground  of  their  na- 
tional descent,  as  the  ninth  chapter  above  shows,  but,  after  all, 
it  was  a  national  promise.  It  belonged  to  the  natural  descent, 
and  constituted  their  "  advantage."  It  could  not  possibly  be 
realized  in  the  church,  because  the  latter  knew  no  racial  dis- 
tinctions. The  essence  of  Judaism  was  separation  from  other 
people.  Two  facts  stood  out  prominently  in  Paul's  day :  first, 
that  the  church  for  the  present  had  displaced  Israel  in  the 
leadership  of  God's  worship  in  the  world ;  secondly,  that  Is- 
rael had  a  promise  in  their  "  oracles  "  that  was  not  realized  in 
the  church  and  could  not  be;  for  the  aim  of  the  latter  was 
not  national  separation,  but  diffusion,  or,  more  exactly,  elec- 
tion from  all  nations.  The  first  question  Paul  has  already 
considered  in  the  ninth  and  tenth  chapters.  Israel  was  justly 
displaced,  and  by  their  own  fault.  With  the  second  fact  the 
present  chapter  deals.  Israel  as  a  separate  people  is  to  be  re- 
stored and  to  reahze  the  promises  made  to  them  in  the  Old 

193 


194  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS         (XL  i,  2) 

Testament.  God's  far-reaching  plans  in  the  riches  of  his  wis- 
dom for  the  salvation  of  the  world  are  here  disclosed,  provok- 
ing the  exultant  hymn  in  verses  33-36.  Israel's  present  fail- 
ure proves  to  be  the  world's  wealth  now  and  their  own  finally. 

Paul's  thought  in  this  chapter  moves  around  two  points:  (i) 
that  the  present  rejection  of  Israel  is  not  total  (verses  i-io), 
and  (2)  it  is  not  final  (verses  11-36).  Under  (i)  he  shows 
that  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  Elijah  (verses  2-4),  so  now  there 
is  an  election  of  grace  (verse  5),  but  not  of  works  (verse  6), 
and  that  the  rest,  as  the  Scripture  declares,  were  hardened 
(verses  7-10). 

Under  (2)  there  are  four  items :  (i)  the  rejection  of  Israel 
had  a  twofold  aim,  {a)  to  timi  the  stream  of  the  gospel  to  the 
Gentiles,  and  {b)  by  this  means  to  provoke  Israel  to  emulation 
(verses  11-15);  (ii)  the  likelihood  of  Israel's  restoration 
should  move  the  Gentiles  to  humihty  and  maintenance  of  faith 
(verses  16-24) ;  (iii)  the  apostle's  prediction  of  Israel's  restora- 
tion (verses  25-32);  and  (iv)  the  worshipful  doxology  (verses 
33-36). 

\^  "I  say  then,  Hath  God  cast  away  his  people?"  The 
preceding  verse  shows  to  whom  Paul  refers.  It  is  "  gainsay- 
ing" and  rejected  Israel  that  is  God's  "people."  "For  I 
also  am  an  Israehte  [of  the  purest  blood,  being]  of  the  seed 
of  Abraham,  of  [through]  the  tribe  of  Benjamin."  Paul  was 
an  Israehte  not  by  proselytism  but  by  blood.  He  asserts  his 
pure  Jewish  descent  not  as  evidence  that  Israel  is  not  wholly 
rejected,  for  the  proof  of  this  proposition  does  not  begin  be- 
fore the  next  verse  is  reached.  He  has  asked  the  question, 
"Hath  God  cast  away  his  people?  "  in  a  negative,  deprecat- 
ing spirit,  and  his  being  an  Israehte  accounts  for  the  manner 
of  the  question.  He  is  in  full  sympathy  with  his  race  and 
may  be  expected  to  answer  the  inquiry  about  Israel  fairly. 
(See  on  x.  i.) 

2.  *'  God  hath  not  cast  off  his  people  whom  he  foreknew." 


(XI.  3-5)     ISRAEL'S  FAILURE  NOT  COMPLETE  195 

In  the  word  "  his  "  and  the  phrase  "  whom  he  foreknew  "  there 
is  a  double  proof  that  Israel,  though  for  the  present  rejected, 
is  not  cast  off.  Among  the  nations  of  the  world  the  Jews 
were  the  only  one  chosen  by  God  for  his  own,  with  whom  also 
he  entered  into  covenant  relations.  A  king  may  be  rejected 
by  his  subjects,  but  he  does  not  reject  them.  Moreover,  God 
"foreknew"  Israel.  For  the  meaning  of  this  word  see  on 
viii.  29.  In  this  present  Christian  age  God  foreknows  indi- 
viduals in  every  nation,  but  Israel  is  the  only  nation  he  ever 
foreknew.  He  elected  it  as  a  whole  to  obtain  the  salvation 
in  Christ  when  the  appointed  time  for  the  blessing  shall  come 
(Matt,  xxiii.  39).  This  constitutes  Israel's  "advantage"  and 
makes  it  to  be  "  much  every  way,"  for  no  other  nation  has  as 
a  nation  the  promise  of  salvation  before  theirs. 

3^  4.  And  even  for  the  present  the  case  of  Israel  is  not  as 
bad  as  human  observation  would  declare  it  to  be.  By  the 
phrase  "of  Ehas,"  or  literally  "in  Elias "  (i  Kings  xix. 
10-18),  Paul  resorts  to  the  method  of  citation  used  before 
the  Bible  was  divided  into  chapters  and  verses.  (See  Mark 
xii.  26  ;  Luke  xx.  37.)  The  prophet  thought  the  nation  ruined 
in  his  day ;  but  the  divine  response  assured  him  of  thousands 
whom  God  had  "reserved,"  or  left  to  himself,  from  the  flood 
of  unbelief  that  had  come  upon  the  land.  The  prophet  saw 
the  overwhelming,  devouring  tide,  but  he  could  not  see  the 
secret  influence  of  the  divine  Spirit,  who  was  leaving  to  God, 
and  preserving  from  Baal,  seven  thousand  faithful  ones. 

5»  "  Even  so  then  at  this  present  time."  Paul  was  better 
acquainted  with  his  days  than  the  prophet  had  been  with  the 
period  to  which  he  belonged  ;  for  the  apostle  had  the  prophet's 
experience  to  guide  him  and  better  means  of  observation.  He 
knew  that  in  every  church  from  Jerusalem  to  Rome  there 
were  more  or  less  Jews  who  accepted  Jesus  as  the  Messiah, 
"a  remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace."  They  had 
not  bowed  the  knee  to  the  Baal  of  unbehef,  because  God's 


196  THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS         (XI.  6, 7) 

Spirit  now,  as  in  the  prophet's  day,  had  rescued  them  from  the 
faithless  sentiment  of  the  nation  against  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 
This  remnant,  this  reserve  from  the  unbeheving  mass,  has 
come  to  be  and  exists  in  accord  with  God's  electing  grace, 
the  phrase  being  added  to  show  in  what  manner  the  remnant 
obtained  salvation. 

While  the  nation  Hes  fallen  and  faithless,  elect  individuals 
are  being  brought  into  the  church,  where,  if  they  lose  the 
national  "advantage,"  they  get  sweet  access  to  God  in  the 
forgiveness  of  sins. 

6^  "  And  if  by  grace,  then  it  is  no  more  of  works."  The 
"  no  more  "  is  not  temporal,  but  logical.  Grace  and  works  are 
mutually  exclusive  methods.  If  the  remnant  was  selected  on 
the  ground  of  grace,  their  legal  works  had  no  part  whatever 
in  the  selection,  else  (the)  grace  would  have  lost  its  character 
as  grace.  In  this  second  mention  of  grace  there  is  no  article 
in  the  original. 

This  verse  expands  the  phrase  "  election  of  grace."  It  serves 
also  to  show  that  the  election,  fully  vindicated  in  chapter  ix., 
is  by  means  of  grace.  This,  which  was  implied  before,  is  now 
clearly  stated.  The  Old  Testament  promised  a  remnant;  it 
is  shown  now  that  nothing  but  grace  secures  it.  The  latter 
half  of  this  verse,  "but  if  of  works,"  etc.,  is  rejected  by  all 
modern  editors. 

7.  "What  then?  "  How  does  the  case  now  stand?  "  Is- 
rael [the  nation]  hath  not  obtained  that  which  he  seeketh  for 
[viz.,  righteousness  (ix.  31,  32)];  but  the  election  [the  elect 
remnant]  hath  obtained  it."  Paul  uses  the  abstract  "elec- 
tion "  rather  than  the  concrete  "  elect,"  to  throw  the  emphasis 
on  the  means  and  not  on  the  result.  "  And  the  rest  [the  mass 
of  natural  Israel]  were  [not  "blinded,"  but]  hardened."  Since 
the  remnant  was  saved  by  grace,  there  was  no  injustice  done 
to  the  "rest."  For  who  can  complain  if  salvation  came  to 
some  where  none  deserved  it?     And  if  the  undeserving  rem- 


(XL  8-1 1)  ISRAEL'S  FAILURE  NOT  COMPLETE  197 

nant  was  saved  because  God  would  and  when  he  would,  why- 
may  not  the  "  rest "  be  saved  in  his  own  time  and  by  the  same 
free  grace? 

8-JO*  Scripture  is  quoted  not  only  in  confirmation  of  the 
hardening  of  the  *'rest"  of  Israel,  but  also  as  descriptive  of 
their  sad  spiritual  condition  during  the  time  of  their  rejection 
(Isa.  xxix.  lo;  Deut.  xxix.  4;  Ps.  Ixix.  22,  23).  The  paren- 
theses in  the  King  James  version  in  verse  8  must  be  removed. 
The  words  "  unto  this  day  "  are  not  Paul's,  but  a  part  of  the 
quotation.  What  was  true  in  their  author's  day  remained  so 
in  Paul's,  and  is  yet  sadly  true.  In  the  word  "  table  "  there 
is  a  picture  of  men  feasting,  eating  and  drinking,  unconscious 
that  their  enemies  are  just  upon  them.  The  Jew's  carnal 
security  while  trusting  in  the  law  proved  his  spiritual  ruin. 
But  the  quotation  is  poetic,  and  need  not  be  rigidly  defined. 
"And  bow  [thouj  down  their  back  alway  "  under  the  heavy 
legal  yoke  (Acts  xv.  10).  The  "alway"  does  not  mean  for- 
ever, or  the  whole  discussion  concerning  Israel  must  end  here. 
"Alway,"  converted  in  a  few  cases  by  some  editors  into  a 
phrase,  occurs  about  seven  times,  and  means  continuously  or 
without  interruption  (Lute  xxiv.  53 ;  Heb.  xiii.  15).  It  is  not 
an  indefinite,  but  a  limited  term,  Hmited  by  the  circumstances 
of  which  it  speaks. 

n*  From  this  verse  to  the  end  of  the  discussion  Paul  con- 
siders the  case  of  the  great  fallen  mass  of  Israel.  (See  under 
(2)  above.)  He  has  already  shown  the  cause  of  the  fall  (ix. 
31-X.)  in  their  own  sin,  the  result  of  which  was  their  harden- 
ing.  It  remains  to  speak  of  the  divine  purpose  in  their  pres- 
ent moral  condition  and  the  outcome  of  the  whole. 

"I  say  then,  Have  they  stumbled  that  they  should  fall?" 
The  question  is  put  negatively  and  deprecatingly,  as  in  the 
first  verse  above.  They  did  not  stumble  that  they  might  fall, 
did  they?  Was  this  the  whole  and  only  purpose?  They  are 
fallen,  but  is  this  the  intended  outcome  of  their  history? 


198  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (XI.  12) 

*'  God  forbid."  There  was  a  gracious,  far-reaching  aim  in 
their  rejection.  The  early  preachers  of  the  gospel  were  so 
full  of  the  Spirit  that  they  must  preach ;  the  gospel  was  like  a 
fire  in  their  bones ;  and  since  the  Jews  would  not  receive  it, 
they  turned  elsewhere  (Acts  xi.  20 ;  xiii.  46,  47).  Through 
the  Jews'  fall  salvation  went  to  the  Gentiles,  to  provoke  the 
former  to  emulation.  "  Jealousy  "  is  not  the  best  word.  In 
time  Israel  will  see  that  the  world  has  gained  what  they  lost 
by  their  obstinacy,  and  the  salvation  of  the  Gentiles  will  teach 
Israel  what  they  did  not  learn  before  they  saw  that  salvation. 
Two  happy  results,  then,  flow  from  their  fall :  a  world  diffusion 
of  the  stream  of  life,  a  stream  in  which  the  fallen  Jew  may  in 
time  wash  himself  from  the  uncleanness  of  his  own  self-right- 
eousness (Isa.  Ixiv.  6). 

12.  "  Now  if  the  [sinful]  fall  of  them  is  the  riches  of  the 
world  [in  that  by  the  fall  the  world  got  the  gospel],  and  [to 
repeat  the  same  question  in  another  form,  if]  the  diminishing 
of  them  [is]  the  riches  of  the  Gentiles ;  how  much  more  their 
fullness?  "  Three  words  here  demand  attention.  Twice  Paul 
calls  the  gospel  sent  to  the  Gentiles  their  "riches."  It  was 
not  their  territory,  not  their  armies,  not  their  culture,  not  their 
treasures,  that  constituted  their  wealth  (Rev.  ii.  9;  iii.  17). 
Again,  the  word  "diminishing"  has  had  various  renderings, 
**  loss,"  "  diminution,"  "  defeat."  It  occurs  in  only  one  other 
instance  in  the  New  Testament  (i  Cor.  vi.  7),  where  it  is 
translated  "  fault."  Furthermore,  has  the  word  a  moral  or  a 
numerical  sense?  Sanday  stands  for  the  meaning  "defeat," 
which  Godet  says  is  impossible.  On  the  whole,  the  word 
seems  to  be  numerical,  and  signifies  diminution.  Israel  was 
reduced  to  the  small  number  of  the  elect.  And  it  must  be 
noted,  though  it  is  but  a  shade,  that  it  is  not  the  elect  that 
Paul  has  in  mind,  but  the  nation  thus  reduced.  It  was  the 
diminishing  of  the  nation,  and  not  the  elect,  that  brought 
riches  to  the  Gentiles. 


(XI.  13,  U)    ISRAEL'S  FAILURE  NOT  COMPLETE  199 

Again,  the  meaning  of  this  word  determines  that  of  the  last 
one,  "fullness."  The  latter  is  also  numerical.  It  denotes 
that  which  fills  out  or  fills  full  an  empty  space.  Israel  by 
their  fall  created  a  great  void  in  their  ranks.  The  "  fullness  " 
looks  to  the  future  reoccupation  of  this  present  vacancy. 
Note  how  the  salvation  of  the  world  turns  on  God's  dealing 
with  Israel.  Their  fall  sent  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles ;  their 
fullness  is  to  issue  in  something  vastly  greater  than  the  pres- 
ent riches ;  ultimate  redemption  is  relative  to  them.  In  a  very 
wide  sense  "salvation  is  of  the  Jews"  (John  iv.  22). 

13,  1 4*  "I  am  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,"  or,  as  the  Re- 
vised Version,  "I  am  an  apostle  of  Gentiles."  Paul  has 
shown  such  an  ardent  desire  for  the  welfare  of  the  Jews,  and 
has  now,  beginning  at  chapter  ix.,  devoted  so  much  of  his 
epistle  to  them,  that  an  explanation  is  due  to  the  Roman 
church,  which,  as  this  passage  impHes,  was  Gentile.  Whatever 
Jews  were  in  it  had  lost  Jewish  caste.  "  I  speak  to  you  " 
(the  whole  Roman  church),  you,  the  "  Gentiles,"  about  Israel, 
for  their  welfare  mightily  affects  yours.  (At  this  point  in  the 
King  James  text  insert  a  colon.)  But  while  I  speak  to  you 
and  am  an  apostle  of  Gentiles,  this  apostleship  looks  also  to- 
ward Israel  (Acts  ix.  15  ;  Rom.  i.  5).  "Inasmuch  then  as  I 
am  an  apostle  of  Gentiles,  I  glorify  my  [Gentile]  ministry 
[I  endeavor  to  give  it  a  resplendent  success] :  if  by  any  means 
I  may  provoke  to  emulation  my  flesh  [the  Jews],  and  might  save 
some  of  them." 

The  "for"  introducing  these  two  verses  is  not  genuine; 
the  approved  reading  is  "but."  The  verses  are  not  a  paren- 
thesis, but  a  logical  part  of  Paul's  argument,  answering  an  ob- 
jection that  might  arise  in  the  minds  of  his  Gentile  readers 
because  he  says  so  much  about  the  Jews.  He  is  laboring  for 
the  Gentiles,  glorifying  his  office  to  them,  but  with  the  salva- 
tion of  at  least  "some  "  Jews  in  view.  For  Gentile  salvation 
cannot  be  accomphshed  directly,  cannot  be  reached,  without 


200  TBE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS  (XI.  15) 

the  "  fullness  "  of  the  Jews.  Therefore  he  is  interested  in  the 
Jews  for  the  Gentiles'  sake,  and  the  Romans  ought  to  be  in- 
terested in  them  for  the  same  reason.  If  Paul  can  in  laboring 
for  the  Gentiles  save  "some"  Jews,  he  has  accomplished  so 
much  toward  the  "  fullness  "  necessary  to  the  completion  of 
Gentile  or  world  salvation. 

J5»  "For  if  the  casting  away  of  them,"  etc.  This  verse 
gives  the  grand  reason  ("for")  for  Paul's  laboring  to  reach 
the  Jew  through  his  Gentile  ministry.  It  is  a  kind  of  minis- 
try little  thought  of  to-day.  The  condition  of  Gentile  Chris- 
tianity is  not  such  now  as  to  impress  the  Jew  with  its  superi- 
ority. 

The  verse  repeats  the  idea  of  the  twelfth  and  brings  this 
section  of  the  argument  to  its  climax.  The  "  casting  away  " 
is  equivalent  to  "their  fall"  or  "diminution";  the  "reconcil- 
ing of  the  world  "  is  equivalent  to  the  "  riches  of  the  world  " 
or  "  of  the  Gentiles  "  ;  the  "  receiving  of  them  "  is  tantamount 
to  "  their  fullness  "  ;  and  the  "  life  from  the  dead  "  to  the  "  how 
much  more."  For  the  significance  of  the  phrase  "  reconciHng 
of  the  world  "  see  2  Corinthians  v.  19.  In  the  verse  before  us 
it  means  that  on  the  Jews'  rejection  God  was  pleased  to  send 
the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles.  This  reconciliation  on  God's  part 
became  the  "  riches  of  the  Gentiles."  The  difficult  point  in  the 
verse  is  in  the  words  "life  from  the  dead."  The  question  is 
twofold :  Who  receives  this  life,  and  what  is  it? 

On  the  surface  the  answer  to  the  first  question  seems  plain. 
In  the  first  member  of  the  sentence  the  clause  "  reconciling  of 
the  world  "  must  mean  the  Gentiles.  The  parallel  demands  the 
same  meaning  for  this  second  clause.  The  casting  away  of 
the  Jews  was  the  "  reconciling  of  the  world  "  ;  the  receiving  of 
the  Jews  into  favor  again  will  be  "  life  from  the  dead  "  extend- 
ing over  the  world.  Of  course  the  phrase  in  question  must  mean 
something  vastly  more  than  the  action  contained  in  the  words 
"reconciling  of  the  world,"  or  there  is  no  climax.     But  what 


(XI.  i6)        ISRAELS  FAILURE  NOT  COMPLETE  201 

is  that  "how  much  more"?  Meyer  contends  that  the  words 
must  have  their  literal  meaning  and  that  they  refer  to  actual 
bodily  resurrection.  If  Paul  says  "life  from  the  dead"  in- 
stead of  "resurrection  from  the  dead,"  it  is  because  his  eye  is 
fixed  upon  the  permanent  and  blessed  state  beyond  the  act 
which  leads  to  it.  This  answers  Alford's  objection  based  on 
this  word  "Hfe."  Meyer's  view  is  favored  by  Sanday,  and 
"  so  many  have  understood  it "  (Boise).  It  has  the  advantage 
of  preserving  the  literalness  of  the  words  and  of  being  in  har- 
mony with  that  expectation  of  the  Jews— an  expectation  of 
resurrection  warranted,  as  they  thought,  by  their  own  Scrip- 
tures. If  Paul,  as  above,  makes  his  argument  point  toward 
the  resurrection  of  the  Gentiles,  it  was  because  it  was  neces- 
sary to  assure  them  also  of  this  "hope  "  (Eph.  ii.  12),  without 
which  they  had  lived  in  all  time  past.  But  the  resurrection 
of  the  Jew  must  occur  at  the  same  time.  He  looked  for  it. 
Paiil  says  the  Jew  instantly  served  God  day  and  night  in  hope 
of  attaining  to  this  promise  (Acts  xxvi.  6-8).  Jesus  constantly 
held  out  this  hope  (Matt.  viii.  11;  Luke  xiii.  28-30;  John 
xi.  25).  He  showed  himself  again  and  again  the  master  of 
death.  The  Jew  looked  for  resurrection  at  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah  (Dan.  xii.  i,  2),  but  he  failed  to  see  that  Jesus  was 
the  Messiah  and  so  failed  of  the  resurrection.  When  Israel 
shall  be  received  again,  then  comes  their  own  resurrection  as 
well  as  that  belonging  to  the  world.  And  so  Paul  has  adroitly 
but  powerfully  turned  the  attention  of  his  Gentile  readers  to 
the  Jews.  Until  the  latter  are  received  the  Gentile  cannot 
hope  for  resurrection. 

J6»  "For  if  the  first-fruit  be  holy."  The  ''for"  is  not  in 
the  original.  It  ought  to  be  "  now  "  or  "  but."  (See  ii  under 
(2)  above.)  Paul  has  not  yet  asserted  that  Israel  will  be  re- 
stored, but  he  has  shown  what  blessed  results  would  follow  if 
they  were  restored.  It  is  their  fall  that  is  still  before  him, 
and  on  this  he  bases  an  exhortation  to  his  Gentile  readers. 


202  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (XI.  i6) 

"First-fruit."  For  the  figure  see  Numbers  xv.  21.  The 
handful  of  dough  offered  to  the  Lord  was  evidence  of  the 
worthiness  of  the  whole  mass  from  which  it  was  taken.  The 
patriarchs  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  are  the  first-fruits,  and 
neither  Christ  nor  the  first  Jewish  Christians  at  Pentecost,  for 
branches  could  not  be  said  to  be  broken  ofl[  from  these. 
"  Holy,"  not  in  the  moral  sense,  but  as  consecrated  to  God 
for  his  own  purpose.  For  this  technical  sense  see  Deuteronomy 
vii.  6  and  i  Corinthians  vii.  14.  The  "lump"  is  the  whole 
lineal  descent  from  the  patriarchs.  The  "root."  He  changes 
his  figure  from  a  lump  of  dough  to  that  of  a  tree,  because  the 
latter  is  easier  of  expansion  in  argument.  The  root,  again,  is 
Abraham  not  merely  as  a  man,  but  as  one  having  the  prom- 
ises ;  and  the  branches  are  his  descendants,  the  fleshly  Israel, 
called  "  holy  "  in  the  sense  given  above. 

What  Paul  is  after  in  this  discussion  under  the  figure  of  the 
ohve-tree  must  be  clearly  kept  in  mind,  or  his  parable  dazzles 
without  helping  sight,  {a)  He  is  not  considering  Abraham  as 
the  ground  or  root  of  salvation,  for  this  is  Christ.  The  failure 
to  understand  Paul  here  has  led  some  (Origen,  Theodoret)  to 
call  Christ  the  "  root."  {b)  It  is  not  a  question  of  fruit-bearing, 
but  of  dependence,  or  his  figure  would  not  be  true  to  nature. 
Fruit  is  in  accord  with  the  engrafted  scion,  and  not  with  the  na- 
ture of  the  root,  {c)  It  is  not  a  question  of  the  continuity  of  the 
church.  Sanday's  statement,  "  The  olive-tree,  the  church  of  God 
looked  at  as  one  continuous  body,"  is  confusing.  The  olive- 
tree  is  the  Jewish  nation  as  a  whole,  which  was  anything  but 
a  church.  Moreover,  the  continuity  of  ancient  Israel  in  the 
church  is  both  inconsistent  with  the  character  of  Israel's  restora- 
tion and  contradictory  of  the  declared  relation  of  the  two.  The 
church  is  not  a  branch  sprung  from  the  root,  but  a  graft  brought 
to  it.  Israel  is  the  basis  of  the  church,  but  not  the  source. 
Israel  is  a  development,  the  church  a  creation  (Eph.  ii.  12; 
iii.  9).    {d)  The  only  question  considered  is  from  what  national 


(XI.  17,  i8)     ISRAELS  FAILURE  NOT  COMTLETE  203 

sources  and  in  what  chronological  order  and  relation  God 
called  men  to  be  his  own  spiritual  people.  He  did  call  some 
Jews  to  be  his,  but  they  were  not  made  his  because  they  were 
Jews.  The  olive-tree  had  the  promise  of  salvation  first,  and 
Paul  here  shows  why  that  promise  was  not  realized  now,  and 
that,  while  there  remains  a  possibility  of  its  future  realization, 
meantime  the  branch  from  the  wild  olive,  the  Gentiles,  came 
into  relations  with  the  good  ohve, 

J 7.  "And  if  some  of  the  branches  [the  "rest"  in  verse  7 
above]  be  broken  off  [denied  the  covenant  salvation  of  Abra- 
ham], and  thou  [the  Gentile  believer,  addressed  directly  for 
emphasis],  being  a  wild  olive  [not  "tree,"  but  branch,  a  mem- 
ber of  an  alien  race  having  no  direct  promise  of  salvation  (cf. 
Eph.  ii.  12  with  19)],  wert  grafted  in  among  them  [made  by 
faith  a  child  of  the  covenant  and  of  God],  and  with  them  [the 
believing  Jews,  the  branches  left  standing]  partakest  [didst  be- 
come a  partaker]  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive-tree." 
Some  by  rejecting  the  "  and  "  read  "  partaker  of  the  root  of 
the  fatness."  The  root  is  Abraham,  not  as  a  mere  physical  pro- 
genitor of  Israel,  but  as  the  covenant  father  (Gal.  iii.  16,  29 ; 
Rom.  iv.  II,  12),  and  the  root  of  the  fatness  is  the  covenant 
with  him  which  supplies  the  fatness,  the  salvation.  The  Gen- 
tile was  grafted  in  by  means  of  his  faith  to  which  he  was  elected 
(Acts  xiii.  48). 

J8»  The  "if"  (since)  beginning  the  last  verse  extends  over 
the  first  part  of  this  one.  If  some  (a  miosis)  were  broken  off 
and  thou  wast  grafted  in,  "  boast  not  against  the  branches  " 
that  were  broken  off  and  are  fallen.  The  boasting  of  the 
Gentile  in  this  case  would  be  most  painful  to  him  who  could 
wish  himself  accursed  for  his  brethren,  his  kinsmen  according 
to  the  flesh.  "  But  if  thou  boast "  thou  art  absurd,  for  "  thou 
bearest  not  the  root,  but  the  root  thee."  The  covenant  of  sal- 
vation made  with  Abraham  is  not  sustained  by  the  Gentile ; 
}ie  is  sustained  and  saved  by  the  covenant.     It  was  clearly 


204  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS      (XL  19-22) 

promised  that  the  nations  should  be  blessed,  but  blessed  in 
Abraham  (Gen.  xxii.  18). 

J 9,  20*  From  Paul's  admonition  the  Gentile  believer  would 
deduce  ("  then  ")  a  reply :  "  Branches  [omit  "  the  "]  were 
broken  off,  that  I  [emphatic]  might  be  grafted  in."  Paul  ad- 
mits the  fact  ("  well "),  but  warningly  directs  the  proud  Gen- 
tile's attention  to  another  side  of  it :  by  want  of  faith  they  were 
broken  off,  and  only  by  faith  do  you  stand  as  a  wild  branch 
on  the  good  stock.  You  stand  not  because  they  fell  and  not 
because  you  are  a  Gentile,  but  solely  by  faith,  having  no  direct 
covenant.  It  might  be  well  for  Gentile  Christianity  to  lay  this 
to  heart  to-day.  When  simple  trust  in  God  fails,  what  better 
is  a  Gentile  church-member  than  the  wrongly  despised  Jew? 
The  admonition  suits  every  age :  "  Be  not  high-minded,  but 
fear." 

2\^  Why  fear?  Because  "if  God  spared  not  the  natural 
branches,"  to  whose  ancestors  the  promises  were  made  and 
who  were  "  his  people  "  (verse  i  above),— if  he  spared  not  them 
because  of  their  unbelief,  why  should  he  spare  you,  a  wild 
branch,  if  you  become  faithless,  as  they  are?  Why  should 
God  have  any  more  regard  for  a  faithless  Gentile  Christianity 
than  for  faithless  Judaism?  The  italic  words  in  the  King 
James  version  add  nothing  to  the  sense,  rather  hinder.  (See 
the  Revised  Version.) 

22»  "  Behold  therefore."  Because  the  Gentile  stands  solely 
by  his  faith,  let  him  "  therefore  "  avoid  boasting,  and  cease 
from  high-mindedness,  and  stop  saying  "  I,"  to  look  rather  at 
the  action  of  God.  "  Severity  "  and  "  goodness."  On  them 
which  fell  came  severity,  and  on  "  thee,  goodness  [the  Gentile 
merited  nothing],  if  thou  continue  in  his  goodness."  The 
contingency  must  not  be  overlooked.  This  continuance  de- 
pended largely  on  God's  favor  toward  the  Gentile  believer, 
but  also  upon  his  own  conduct.  The  relation  of  the  two  here, 
as  elsewhere,  is  not  given.     The  Gentile  is  responsible  for  his 


(XI.  23,  24)     ISRAEL'S  FAILURE  NOT  COMPLETE  205 

conduct,  and  if  he  fails  to  honor  God  he  will  fall  as  did  the  Jew. 
(See  the  letters  addressed  to  the  churches  in  Rev.  ii.,  iii.) 
"  Otherwise  thou  also  shalt  be  cut  off."  For  why  should  God 
spare  a  hollow,  faithless  church  that  fails  to  appreciate  its  in- 
effable mercy  (Eph.  ii.  4,  5),  when  he  spared  not  "his  peo- 
ple"? 

23,  24*  "  And  they  also,  if  they  abide  not  still  in  unbelief." 
When  God's  piurpose  in  breaking  them  off  is  served  their 
blindness  will  be  removed  (2  Cor.  iii.  14-16),  and  they  will 
come  into  the  blessed  "  advantage  "  mentioned  in  iii.  2.  Here 
again  there  is  a  contingency.  God  does  all,  but  he  acts  also 
on  the  human  conscience  and  will  mediately.  He  would  in- 
fluence the  Gentile  by  fear  lest  he  be  broken  off;  he  would 
move  Israel  by  hope,  the  hope  of  regaining  his  lost  standing. 
His  rejection  is  not  absolute  and  final.  "  God  is  able  to  graft 
them  [the  fallen  branches]  in  again."  Paul's  reference  to 
God's  power  is  not  to  his  abstract  ability,  which  would  be 
commonplace,  but  he  is  able,  stubborn  as  Israel  seems,  to  re- 
move his  unbeHef,  the  real  hindrance.  The  twenty-fourth  verse 
elucidates  ("for")  what  Paul  means  in  appealing  to  God's 
concrete  power  as  the  means  of  Israel's  restoration.  He  is 
able  to  graft  them  in  again,  because  in  love  he  can  shape  their 
circumstances,  their  religious  education,  and  their  history  in  a 
form  to  lead  them  to  Christ.  The  figure  of  the  olive-tree  in 
this  verse  is  not  to  be  pressed,  else  his  "  how  much  more  "  be- 
comes "how  much  less."  For  certainly  it  would  be  easier  to 
graft  in  a  hving  wild  branch  than  a  dead  natural  branch. 
Israel  lies  sapless  and  withered.  The  inherent  condition  of 
the  branches,  whether  dead  or  alive,  is  just  what  does  not 
come  into  view.  The  point  is  the  usual  course  taken  in  graft- 
ing. The  gardener  for  some  purpose  might  graft  a  wild  shoot 
on  a  good  stock,  but  "how  much  more"  likely  is  it  that  he 
will  graft  in  good  branches!  A  man  might  leave  by  will  a 
large  portion  of  his  estate  to  the  son  of  a  stranger,  but  ho\^ 


206  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (XI.  25) 

much  more  will  he  devise  for  his  own  children!  Divested  of 
the  figurative  language,  Paul's  thought  is  this:  if  God  could 
wean  some  Gentiles  from  their  idol-worship  and  their  gross 
immorality  and  lead  them  to  adopt  the  religion  of  another 
nation,  can  he  not  **  much  more  "  lead  Israel  to  adopt  their 
own  ancestral  worship  when  they  are  once  brought  to  see 
what  it  is,  and  that  it  is  their  own,  and  that  their  ignorant 
works  have  been  perverting  it?  God's  ability  is  in  his  unfail- 
ing love  toward  Israel. 

What  is  gained  in  the  figure  lies  in  its  suggestion.  "  Nature  " 
seems  to  mean  here  the  estabHshed  course  of  things  in  the 
kingdom.  Its  course  lay  through  Israel.  Gentile  salvation 
is  contrary  to  "  nature,"  and  Jewish  rejection  is  also  contrary 
to  "nature."  The  course  of  things,  that  is,  nature,  will  in  due 
time  assert  itself.  Therefore  let  the  Gentile  fear ;  let  the  Jew 
hope.  The  wild  branch  may  be  broken  off,  the  fallen  one 
grafted  in  again. 

25*  With  this  verse  begins  (see  (2)  iii  above)  the  direct  pre- 
diction of  fallen  Israel's  restoration.  Paul  has  been  speaking 
of  the  possibility  of  it.  Here  he  justifies  ("for")  his  assertion 
of  the  possibiHty  by  declaring  that  there  is  a  temporal  limit  to 
Israel's  rejection.  It  only  lasts  "until  the  fullness  of  the 
Gentiles  be  come  in."  This  is  revealed  for  moral  purposes, 
that  the  brethren  of  the  Roman  church,  being  Gentiles,  may 
not  be  "  wise  in  their  own  conceits  "  and  arrogate  to  themselves 
a  rehgious  supremacy  that  can  never  end.  How  completely 
this  very  Roman  church  does  this  very  thing  to-day,  and  how 
fully  Protestantism  imitates  her  so  far!  To  the  religious  world 
this  section  of  this  chapter  is  a  dead  letter  and  is  made  "  of 
none  effect"  (Mark  vii.  13)  by  the  current  tradition.  This 
Jewish  bhndness  with  its  limit  in  time  is  called  a  "  mystery," 
that  is,  a  fact  which  could  not  be  known  except  by  revelation. 
Rehgious  history  is  not  a  natural  development ;  its  source  is  in 
the  divine  will  and  its  explanation  is  in  his  Word.     History 


(XL  25)         ISRAEL'S  FAILURE  NOT  COMPLETE  207 

may  throw  some  light  on  the  Bible,  but  the  Bible  sheds  much 
more  on  history.  It  is  not  because  the  Jew  is  morally  worse 
and  the  Gentile  morally  better  that  religious  supremacy  passed 
from  one  to  the  other ;  it  came  about  because  this  was  God's 
plan  to  save  both  Jew  and  Gentile.  And  the  transfer  having 
been  made,  human  ken  could  not  have  dreamed  that  it  is  ever 
to  be  reversed ;  it  is  a  *'  mystery  "  which  the  Gentile  is  slow  to 
believe. 

"  That  blindness  [hardness]  in  part  has  happened  to  Israel." 
It  is  not  a  total,  but  a  partial  hardness;  it  exists  not  for  all 
time,  but  only  "  until  the  fullness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in." 
This  phrase,  "fullness  of  the  Gentiles,"  is  obscure.  It  cer- 
tainly does  not  mean  that  all  the  Gentiles  are  first  to  be  saved. 
The  Scriptures  nowhere  promise  this  for  the  present  age,  for 
which  Paul  knows  of  nothing  but  an  election,  the  idea  of  which 
excludes  that  of  general  and  complete  salvation.  Further- 
more, Paul  (in  verse  15  above)  puts  the  conversion  of  the 
world  not  before,  but  after,  the  "receiving"  of  Israel,  their 
restoration  being  the  chief  condition  in  the  salvation  of  the 
Gentiles. 

The  phrase  may  mean  (so  Govett)  that  the  void  made  in 
Israel  by  the  hardening  and  fall  of  a  part  is  filled  up  from  the 
Gentiles.  In  this  case  the  "of"  would,  as  it  might,  mean 
"  from,"  and  the  words  "  come  in  "  would  get  a  fair  meaning 
— come  into  the  vacancy.  In  the  parable  in  Luke  xiv.  16-24 
the  bidden  guests  refuse  to  come,  after  which  the  servant  is  sent 
into  the  highways  and  hedges  (among  the  Gentiles),  "that," 
as  the  host  said,  "my  house  may  be  filled."  He  got  the  full- 
ness for  his  house  from  these  strange  places.  In  Matthew  xxii. 
1-14,  after  the  king  has  destroyed  the  city  in  which  his  first 
invitation  was  rejected,  he  finds  a  supply  of  guests  by  going 
beyond  and  bringing  together  as  many  as  he  found,  "both 
bad  and  good,"  a  part  only  of  whom  were  accepted,  "for 
many  are  called,  but  few  chosen."     This  view  is  not  worthy 


208  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS      (XL  26,  27) 

of  the  harsh  condemnation  of  Godet,  that  it  "  tortures  at  will " 
the  words  of  the  apostle.  It  is  plausible,  but  lacks  support 
from  anything  in  the  context. 

The  explanation  of  the  phrase  is  not  to  be  found  in  any- 
numerical,  but  in  the  temporal  view.  "  Until "  suggests  time. 
The  whole  context  brings  up  the  notion  of  time,  Jerusalem 
is  to  be  "  trodden  down  until  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  be  ful- 
filled "  (Luke  xxi.  24).  This  view  has  so  much  in  its  favor  that 
it  overbalances  the  difficulty  left  by  it  in  the  words  "  be  come 
in."     The  phrase  may  be  used  metaphorically. 

26.  "  And  so  all  Israel  shall  be  saved."  "  So  "  looks  to  the 
removal  of  the  circumstances  just  mentioned,  the  partial  blind- 
ness and  the  hmit.  The  illogical  notion  that  "  Israel "  here 
is  the  spiritual  Israel  is  no  longer  held.  It  is  the  fallen,  re- 
jected, natural  Israel,  the  only  nation  in  this  age  that  has  the 
promise  of  salvation  as  a  whole.  It  will  not  be  merely  Chris- 
tianized, but  Christian.  He  gives  a  Scripture  proof  that  Is- 
rael shall  be  saved :  "  It  is  written  [in  Isa.  lix.  20  after  the 
Septuagint,  and  in  other  places  substantially,  Isa.  xxvii.  9  ;  Ps. 
xiv.  7],  There  shall  come  out  of  Zion  [Ps.  ex.  2]  [the  place  of 
God's  glory]  the  Deliverer  [the  Goel,  a  strong  kinsman  who 
avenges  his  weaker  friends],  and  shall  turn  away  ungodliness 
[Ps.  xcix.]  [impieties]  from  Jacob."  The  word  "Jacob,"  the 
fleshly  name,  found  in  the  quotation,  gives  the  meaning  of  the 
word  "  Israel."  Whether  the  reference  is  to  the  first  or  to  the 
second  coming  of  the  Messiah  is  not  indicated.  The  promise 
of  deliverance  for  Jacob  is  connected  with  a  coming  of  the 
Christ.  He  has  come;  he  will  surely  make  good  that  for 
which  he  came. 

27.  A  second  Scripture  proof  of  Israel's  restoration.  "  And 
[not  "for"]  this  [which  follows]  is  my  covenant  unto  them, 
when  I  shall  take  away  their  sins."  The  word  "Jacob  "  looks 
at  them  in  the  mass ;  the  word  "  their  "  looks  at  them  indi- 
vidually.    The  sense  of  the  verse  is,  "  When  I  shall  take  away 


(XI.  28,  29)    ISRAEL'S  FAILURE  NOT  COMPLETE  209 

their  sins,  this  taking  away  of  sins  is  my  side  of  the  covenant 
with  them."  God's  covenant  promises  the  taking  away  of 
sins,  and  it  cannot  be  broken.  The  verse  seems  to  be  a  con- 
densation of  Jeremiah  xxxi.  31-34. 

28^  29.  Paul  now  reviews  and  sums  up  the  previous  discus- 
sion. Israel  in  their  relation  to  the  gospel  are  "  enemies  [re- 
garded as  such  by  God]  for  your  sakes."  He  withheld  the 
gospel  from  them  that  you  might  have  it.  But  Israel  in  rela- 
tion to  their  own  election  by  God  as  his  people  are  "  beloved 
for  the  fathers'  sakes,"  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob.  The 
election  here  does  not  refer  to  the  elect  remnant  now  in  the 
church,  but  to  God's  choice  of  the  Jewish  nation  as  his  own 
(Deut.  vii.  6).  That  Israel  is  beloved  for  the  fathers'  sakes 
sounds  strange  in  view  of  what  John  the  Baptist  said :  "  Think 
not  to  say  within  yourselves.  We  have  Abraham  to  our  father." 
But  John  was  only  denying  salvation  on  the  ground  of  natu- 
ral descent,  which  Paul  also  denies.  The  covenant  descent, 
which  requires  the  faith  of  him  with  whom  the  covenant  is 
made,  is  everywhere  allowed  (Luke  xiii.  16;  xix.  9;  Acts  iii. 
25).  "  If  the  first-fruit  be  holy,  the  lump  is  also  holy:  and  if 
the  root  be  holy,  so  are  the  branches."  Israel  is  beloved  not 
as  the  natural,  but  as  the  covenant  descent.  God  loved  the 
fathers  not  alone  as  men,  but  as  those  who  beheved  his  prom- 
ise about  an  innumerable  progeny.  That  love  is  a  guaranty 
that  God  will  make  the  descent  like  the  fathers  and  worthy  of 
them.  He  will  not  mock  the  fathers*  faith  about  their  pro- 
geny. He  will  take  away  ungodHness  from  Jacob,  and  see  to 
It  (verse  23)  that  they  "  abide  not  still  in  unbehef."  For  while 
beloved  for  the  fathers'  sakes,  they  will  be  saved  by  faith. 
They  are  an  intensely  religious  race,  strangely  preserved. 
Their  zeal  will  in  due  time  be  according  to  knowledge. 

That  Israel  is  still  beloved  is  proved  by  the  general  principle 
of  the  kingdom,  based  on  the  divine  character,  that  the  "  gifts 
and  caUing  of  God  are  without  repentance."     The  "gifts" 


210  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS     (XI.  30-32) 

are  not  the  "  moral  and  intellectual  aptitudes  "  with  which  God 
has  endowed  the  Jews  (Godet),  but  their  own  pecuHar  posses- 
sions, already  enumerated  in  ix.  4,  5.  The  "calHng"  is  that 
act  of  God  in  which  he  chose  them  for  his  people.  These  gifts 
and  this  calling  are  "without  repentance"  on  God's  part;  he 
will  never  recall  them.  Having  once  given  them  to  Israel,  he 
makes  them  theirs  forever ;  he  does  not  change  (iii.  3 ;  Mai. 
iii.  6). 

30,  3t.  "  For"  introduces  these  two  verses  not  as  a  proof, 
but  as  indicating  how  the  general  principle  just  mentioned  will 
be  reahzed  by  Israel.  "  For  as  ye  in  times  past,"  etc.  The 
contrast  between  the  "  ye,"  the  Romans,  and  the  "  their  "  shows 
that  the  Roman  church  was  in  the  main  Gentile.  These 
Gentiles  once  disbeheved  God  and  were  dead  in  sins;  but 
they  obtained  mercy  by  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews,  as  described 
in  verses  11  and  12  above.  And  just  so  "these"  have  not 
beheved,  "  that  through  your  mercy  [the  same  mercy  shown  to 
you]  they  also  may  obtain  mercy."  As  the  Gentile's  disobedi- 
ence brought  him  the  mercy  of  God,  so  the  Jew's  disobedience 
will  bring  him  the  same  mercy,  in  which  he  will  realize  that 
God's  gifts  and  calling  are  changeless. 

32#  The  "  for  "  introducing  this  verse  is  hardly  argumenta- 
tive ;  it  confirms  nothing.  Verses  30  and  31  practically  restate 
everything  from  verse  1 1  in  a  single  sentence.  The  verse  be- 
fore us  puts  these  two  verses,  especially  the  thirty-first,  in  an- 
other form,  almost  that  of  a  general  principle  of  God's  deahng 
with  men.  His  whole  action  with  both  Jew  and  Gentile  comes 
to  this,  that  he  "hath  concluded  [locked  up  as  in  a  prison] 
them  all  in  unbelief  [with  this  grand  purpose],  that  he  might 
have  mercy  upon  all."  There  is  nothing  richer  than  his  mercy. 
If  the  Jews,  for  instance,  had  obeyed  him  they  could  have  ex- 
perienced only  his  fidelity.  Mercy,  which  wholly  excludes 
privilege  or  merit,  is  the  grand  idea  (Eph.  ii.  4,  5).  The  Jew 
will  find  his  gifts  and  calling,  but  they  come  to  him  as  a  mat- 


(XI.  32)        ISKAEVS  FAILURE  NOT  COMPLETE  211 

ter  of  mercy— mercy  that  excludes  "boasting"  (iii.  27).  Au- 
thorities are  divided  on  the  meaning  of  "all."  It  certainly 
does  not  refer  to  the  elect;  the  whole  context  forbids  that. 
But  does  it  mean  all  men,  all  individuals  (Meyer,  Alford),  or  all 
nations,  the  Jews  and  the  Gentiles  about  whom  Paul  has  been 
speaking?  The  context  is  decisive  for  the  latter.  This  gen- 
eral principle,  as  some  have  failed  to  notice,  describes  God's 
attitude  toward  men,  and  not  the  outcome  of  that  attitude. 
It  does  not  contradict  other  plain  Scriptures  by  teaching  uni- 
versal salvation,  or  salvation  without  faith.  "The  Scripture 
hath  concluded  all  under  sin,  that  the  promise  by  faith  of 
Jesus  Christ  might  be  given  to  them  that  believe  "  (Gal.  iii.  22). 
The  principle  says  nothing  about  the  outcome  of  the  divine 
mercy  toward  all.  It  simply  declares  that  God  has  actively  and 
direcdy  locked  up  all  in  sin  so  that  he  may  have  mercy  toward 
all ;  that  if  they  are  saved  they  are  saved  by  mercy.  This  is 
the  final  and  complete  explanation  of  the  Jew's  fall.  He  was 
by  nature  a  sinner ;  God  hedged  that  nature  about  with  a  rigid 
law  to  show  him  what  his  real  character  was.  He  tried  to  find 
liberty  within  its  iron  bars,  but  gets  only  slavery.  Mercy 
alone  can  deHver  him.  The  Gentile  in  Paul's  day  had  no 
law,  but  sought  liberty  in  wisdom,  his  own  wisdom  (i.  21,  22), 
and  in  his  quest  became  a  fool  and  a  slave  to  his  lust.  God 
knows  that  man  cannot  save  himself,  that  no  form  of  civil 
government  and  no  system  of  ethics,  even  though  it  be  that  of 
the  Old  or  of  the  New  Testament,  can  attain  to  liberty.  But 
man  does  not  know  it;  he  is  in  the  rough  prison,  shut  up 
under  sin  to  learn  it,  to  learn  that  salvation  cannot  be  reached 
by  human  effort,  that  it  comes  down  from  God,  the  absolute 
gift  of  his  mercy.  This  divine  purpose  of  mercy  is  not  only 
the  explanation  of  the  Jew's  fall,  but  of  the  continuance  of  the 
world  in  sin.  It  is  the  key  to  those  terrible  first  chapters  of  the 
epistle.  Universal  condemnation  leads  to  the  universal  prin- 
ciple of  mercy.     And  what  Paul  saw  in  his  world-wide  view 


212  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS      (XL  33-36) 

in  his  day  is  still  sadly  true.  The  nations  are  in  sin ;  Israel 
still  refuses  the  Christ.  The  lesson  of  sin's  prison-house  is 
not  yet  learned ;  but  what  the  elect  have  found  out  all  along — 
that  there  is  no  hope  in  themselves— the  nations  will  learn  in 
due  time,  and  man's  works  will  cease,  and  God's  principle  of 
mercy  toward  all  will  bring  salvation.  God  now  elects  men 
from  both  Jew  and  Gentile ;  Jew  and  Gentile  will  then  elect 
God.     This  thirty-second  verse  is  the  climax  of  the  epistle. 

33-36.  Having  completed  his  argument,  Paul,  in  reviewing 
God's  plans  and  purposes  as  they  were  unfolded  to  him, 
breaks  forth  in  a  lofty  strain  of  adoration  to  him  who  is  guid- 
ing the  nations  and  the  world  to  salvation.  "  We  have  learned 
Paul's  meaning  only  when  we  can  join  in  this  ascription  of 
praise"  (M.  B.  Riddle).  It  is  a  hymn  of  faith  not  in  man, 
but  in  God.  To  be  sure,  there  was  a  chain  of  churches  reach- 
ing from  Jerusalem  to  Rome,  but  the  world  around  was  sunk 
in  heathenish  darkness;  Satan  was  god  of  the  world  (2  Cor. 
iv.  4),  **  the  spirit  that  now  worketh  in  the  children  of  disobe- 
dience "  (Eph.  ii.  2) ;  false  professors  were  many  (Phil.  iii.  18) 
and  false  teachers  were  arising  (Acts  xx.  29,  30),  while  bonds 
and  afflictions  awaited  the  apostle  himself  (Acts  xx.  23) ;  but 
he  saw  the  meaning  of  it  all  in  seeing  that  God  had  an  ulti- 
mate merciful  purpose  for  all,  and  hence  this  optimistic  wor- 
ship.    (See  iv  above  under  (2).) 

"  O  the  depth ! "  With  most  commentators,  this  should 
probably  be  translated,  "  O  the  depth  of  the  riches  and  of  the 
wisdom  and  of  the  knowledge  of  God!"  He  unfolds  these 
chiastically,  treating  of  the  wisdom  and  knowledge  to  the  end 
of  verse  34,  and  of  the  riches  in  the  remaining  two  verses. 
The  word  "  depth,"  as  Chrysostom  suggests,  is  the  language 
of  wondering  admiration  when  one  cannot  see  all.  "  Riches  " 
is  to  be  taken  absolutely.  It  is  not  the  riches  of  his  grace, 
nor  of  any  one  thing,  but  of  all.  God  is  inexpressibly  rich. 
''Wisdom"  adapts  means  to  ends,  and  "knowledge"  sees 


(XI.  33-3^)    ISRAEL'S  FAILURE  NOT  COMPLETE  213 

both  in  all  their  relations.  Paul,  from  the  mountain  height 
attained  in  his  argument,  beholds  in  one  view  the  history  of 
man  from  the  beginning  in  Adam  to  the  triumphant  end  in 
Christ  as  King  of  kings.  This  history  is  not  man's,  but  God's 
in  his  deahng  with  man,  a  history  of  God's  own  wisdom  and 
knowledge.  Paul  is  the  true  historian  of  the  race  as  well  as 
the  true  philosopher.  No  man  can  be  either  who  leaves  God 
out.  Hence  man's  history  of  himself  is  one  of  blood  and  fail- 
ure. The  Bible  teaches  more  real  knowledge  about  mankind 
than  is  to  be  found  in  all  other  books. 

"  How  unsearchable  his  judgments,  and  his  ways  past  find- 
ing out! "  Mere  human  wisdom  cannot  understand  them  and 
so  pronounces  them  folly  (i  Cor.  ii.  14).  His  "judgments" 
are  the  product  of  his  wisdom ;  his  "  ways  "  the  mode  of  his 
procedure  (Meyer)  in  making  his  decrees  effective.  Here  is 
the  secret  of  profound  reverence  and  devout  worship.  This 
sweUing  doxology,  this  burst  of  praise,  comes  forth  as  Paul 
scans  the  "  ways  "  of  God  and  sees  something  of  his  wide  pur- 
poses for  men.  It  comes  not  from  a  contemplation  of  God's 
infinitely  tender  heart,  but  of  his  infinitely  wise  mind.  Men 
know  God's  acts;  the  masters  know  his  ways  (Ps.  ciii.  7). 
History  and  prophecy!  Without  these  true  reverence  cannot 
be  reached.  A  mystery  remains,  for  his  judgments  are  un- 
searchable and  his  riches  have  a  depth  that  is  lost  in  darkness. 
But  it  is  the  mystery  of  intelligence  and  not  of  superstition,  a 
mystery  that  swathes  reverence  with  a  celestial  glory.  Paul 
could  not  have  worshiped  here  had  he  been  able  to  see  all ; 
but  he  saw  enough  to  console  him  for  the  present  rejection  of 
his  kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh  ;  enough  to  satisfy  him  that 
the  Word  of  God  had  not  failed,  though  Israel  was  not  saved  ; 
enough  to  be  sure  that,  while  only  a  meager  elect  number  from 
both  Jew  and  Gentile  was  as  yet  accepted,  this  was  God's  way 
that  ultimately  he  might  have  mercy  on  all.  Therefore,  standing 
in  the  midst  of  a  world  full  of  idolatry  and  woe,  Paul  adored. 


214  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS      (XL  34-36) 

34^  "For  who  hath  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord?"  A 
proof  ("for")  from  the  Septuagint  Scriptures  (Isa.  xl.  13)  that 
God's  judgments  and  decrees  are  such  as  they  are  declared  to 
be  in  the  last  verse.  It  is  well-nigh  a  challenge  to  produce 
the  man  outside  the  circle  of  the  inspired  prophets  and  apos- 
tles—the wise  man  that  understood  God  or  that  could  give 
him  advice.  The  religious  element  in  uninspired  history  and 
philosophy  is  folly,  and  Paul  has  already  (i.  22)  in  this  epistle 
called  its  authors  fools  (i  Cor.  ii.  8;  iii.  19,  20).  This  verse 
again  looks  chiastically  at  what  precedes,  "  the  mind  of  the 
Lord  "  corresponding  to  the  mention  of  "  knowledge  "  above, 
and  the  word  "  counselor  "  to  "  wisdom."  God's  love  explains 
God's  gifts,  but  his  mind  and  wisdom  alone  explain  his  provi- 
dence or  the  manner  in  which  he  makes  the  gifts  of  love  effec- 
tive. Modern  thought  of  the  advanced  sort  fails  here.  It 
attempts  to  explain  everything  by  love,  with  an  inadequate 
notion  even  of  what  that  is,  and  so  belittles  the  Book  of  di- 
vine history  and  prophecy  by  denying  it  any  proper  inspira- 
tion. Who  has  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord,  except  as  it  was 
divinely  revealed  to  him?  "Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy 
God  with  all  thy  mind"— study  his  ways. 

35.  With  this  verse  Paul  enlarges  on  the  word  "riches" 
above.  The  reference  is  to  Job  xxxv.  7  or  li.  1 1.  No  one  ever 
gave  to  God.  Salvation  and  the  whole  plan  of  its  administra- 
tion are  of  grace.  No  one  ever  receives  God's  favor  as  a  rec- 
ompense for  something  done.  The  "  Lord  over  all  is  rich  unto 
all  that  call  upon  him  "  (x.  12).  They  call  not  to  give,  but  as 
beggars  (Matt.  v.  3)  to  receive  out  of  his  store. 

36.  "  For  of,  .  .  .  through,  ...  to  him,  are  all  things." 
This  verse  is  the  proof  that  no  one  gives  to  God  and  therefore 
receives  a  recompense.  For  "  of  him  "  are  all  things ;  he  is 
their  source,  the  Creator.  And  "  through  him  "  are  all  things ; 
he  is  the  mediator  of  their  existence ;  he  upholds,  rules,  and 
directs.    And  "  to  him  are  all  things  " ;  he  is  their  final  cause ; 


(XI.  36)        ISRAEL'S  FAILURE   NOT  COMPLETE  215 

they  serve  ultimately  not  man's,  but  God's,  ends.  To  Paul 
this  was  not  a  dry  statement  of  theologic  fact,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  but  a  reason  for  worship.  All  things,  all  events,  are 
full  of  God.  To  him  be  the  befitting  glory  to  the  ages. 
Amen. 

(i)  It  is  to  be  noticed  in  this  momentous  discussion  that 
Paul  regards  God's  covenant  with  Abraham  as  one  embracing 
his  natural  seed  and  perpetually  valid ;  that  he  uses  the  words 
"Jacob"  and  "Israel"  not  in  reference  to  the  church,  but  to 
designate  this  natural  seed.  In  the  Old  Testament  he  must 
have  read  these  words  in  the  same  way,  so  that  he  did  not 
apply  what  concerns  Jacob  and  Israel  to  the  church.  Much 
of  the  Old  Testament  remains  unfulfilled. 

(2)  Again,  he  keeps  up  the  sharp  distinction  between  Jew 
and  Gentile;  but  the  ultimate  salvation  of  both  is  vitally 
linked  together,  so  that  neither  party  can  be  saved  without  the 
other.  Paul,  though  an  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  labored  also 
to  save  the  Jews  on  this  very  account.  Missions  to  the  Jews 
are  eminently  scriptural.  His  own  conception  of  the  matter 
was  "to  the  ]qw Jlrsty     (See  on  i.  16.) 

(3)  Again,  neither  the  unbelief  of  Israel  nor  of  the  nations 
is  estopping  the  current  of  God's  rich  grace.  What  the  na- 
tions are  losing  the  "election"  from  all  nations  is  gaining. 
The  gospel  disbelieved  by  races  is  saving  individuals. 

(4)  While  Paul  does  not  predict  the  breaking  off  of  the  en- 
grafted wild-olive  branch,  the  church,  he  warns  it  ominously. 
It  has  no  guaranty  in  a  covenant,  as  has  even  fallen  Israel. 
It  stands  alone  by  faith.  The  individuals  of  the  church,  the 
elect,  have  the  most  comforting  assurance  of  eternal  salvation, 
but  God  has  not  promised  to  continue  to  elect.  Indeed,  it  is 
impossible  to  see  how  individual  election,  the  source  of  the 
church,  is  consistent  with  God's  ultimate  "mercy  upon  all." 
Election  is  a  means  to  an  end  in  God's  wide  dealing  with  men. 
When  the  end  is  reached,  election  will  cease. 


216  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (XL  36) 

(5)  And  finally,  Paul  contents  himself  with  predicting  the 
fact  of  Israel's  restoration.  He  has  not  one  word  to  say 
about  the  details,  whether  the  Jews  will  revive  their  ancient 
liturgy,  rebuild  Jerusalem,  and  possess  their  land ;  of  these  and 
similar  questions  he  is  instructively  silent. 


CHAPTER  XII 

RELIGIOUS    DUTIES 

The  chapter  has  two  main  divisions:  (i)  special  duties 
(verses  i-8),  based  on  specific  endowments  of  faith,  and  (2) 
general  duties  (verses  9-21) ;  or  the  first  might  be  called  offi- 
cial, because  they  were  to  be  discharged  toward  the  church 
as  a  whole,  and  the  second  personal,  because  they  regulated 
the  conduct  of  each  member  with  the  other. 

J.  Paul  does  not  command  Uke  Moses ;  he  beseeches.  His 
entreaty  gets  its  point  and  strength  through  the  mercies  or 
compassions  of  God.  These  mercies,  as  the  "  therefore " 
shows,  are  the  ones  mentioned  above  (xi.  30-36),  a  paragraph 
that  condenses  the  whole  theodicy  (ix.-xi.).  These  solemn 
facts  of  election  and  hardening,  of  breaking  off  of  some 
branches  and  grafting  in  others,  are  called  "  mercies,"  because 
the  end  of  all  is  "mercy  upon  all"  (xi.  32). 

"That  ye  present  your  bodies."  "Present"  is  a  temple 
term  for  the  bringing  thither  of  anything  to  God.  So  Jesus 
was  presented  (Luke  ii.  22),  and  so  Paul  would  present  each 
believer  (Col.  i.  28).  He  entreats  the  Romans  to  make  them- 
selves a  sacrificial  offering  to  God.  This  word  "  present "  oc- 
curs first  in  the  epistle  at  vi.  13,  a  verse  which  this  chapter  now 
unfolds.  It  is  there  translated  "yield."  (See  note  there.) 
"  Bodies  "  is  the  comprehensive  term  for  the  whole  man,  body, 
soul,  and  spirit  (i  Thess.  v.  23).     It  is  equivalent  to  "your- 

317 


218  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (XII.  2) 

selves,"  but  better  suited  than  the  latter  word  to  Paul's  sacri- 
ficial idea. 

"A  hving  sacrifice,  holy,  acceptable."  They  had  all  this 
in  Christ.  They  were  alive  from  the  dead  in  him,  they  were 
consecrated  or  holy  in  him,  they  were  acceptable  to  God  in 
him.  These  were  not  quaUties  to  be  sought  by  them  in  addi- 
tion to  justification  ;  they  came  with  it  and  belong  to  it.  These 
three  words  analyze  or  give  the  contents  of  their  righteousness 
in  Christ.  They  were  to  present  themselves  such  as  they  al- 
ready were.  "  Your  reasonable  service."  It  was  not  to  be  a 
literal  presentation  of  their  bodies,  but  a  rational  service.  The 
idea  is  that  of  spiritual  worship  in  contrast  with  the  tangible 
carnal  sort  in  Judaism.  They  presented  themselves  by  heart 
worship  of  God  (John  iv.  23,  24). 

2»  "  Be  not  conformed  to  this  world."  The  world,  or  age, 
is  looked  at  in  its  moral  features.  It  is  **  this  "  world  in  con- 
trast with  one  which  is  coming.  What  makes  this  world  is  its 
spirit,  its  pursuits,  and  its  domination.  Its  spirit  is  selfishness 
and  not  love ;  its  pursuits  are  the  pleasing  of  self  and  not  God ; 
and  its  domination  is  from  the  evil  one  and  not  from  Christ, 
whose  rule  it  rejects  (Eph.  ii.  2  ;  Gal.  i.  4  ;  John  xiv.  30).  To 
be  conformed  to  it  is  to  be  world-like,  or  age-hke,  selfish,  self- 
seeking,  and  devoid  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  to  have  the  same 
moral  fashion. 

"  Be  ye  transformed  [not  by  mere  outward  means  in  modes 
of  dress  and  of  eating  and  drinking,  but]  by  the  renewing  of 
your  mind."  The  two  words  "  conform  "  and  "  transform  " 
are  widely  different.  The  former  looks  to  the  outward  mold, 
the  latter  to  the  inward  substance.  The  Romans  were  not 
simply  to  shun  the  fashion  of  the  world,  but  its  character,  to 
have  not  only  a  different  way  of  living,  but  a  different  heart. 
The  word  "  renewing  "  occurs  in  but  one  other  place  in  the  New 
Testament  (Tit.  iii.  5),  and  there  in  connection  with  "regen- 
eration."    The  latter  is  the  divine  act  in  which  the  rehgious 


(Xll.  2)  RELIGIOUS  DUTIES  219 

life  begins.  The  "  renewing  "  is  the  "  following  up,  the  con- 
sequence, the  consummation  "  (Trench,  "  Syn.")  of  regenera- 
tion. In  regeneration  the  believer  is  passive ;  in  the  renewing 
he  is  in  active  cooperation  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  agent  of 
the  renewing  process.  The  renewing  continues  what  the 
single  act  of  regeneration,  done  once  for  all,  begins  (2  Cor. 
iv.  16). 

The  "  mind  "  is  the  organ  of  moral  thinking  and  knowing. 
The  word  has  been  used  thrice  before  in  the  epistle:  i.  28, 
where  the  organ  was  judicially  perverted  that  men  might  not 
think  right  in  moral  matters;  vii.  23,  25,  where  its  action  was 
normal,  but,  in  attempting  to  realize  its  perceptions,  always  de- 
feated by  enslavement  to  the  flesh;  xi.  34,  where  it  means 
God's  infinite  ability  to  know.  Since  men  are  transformed  by 
the  action  of  the  mind,  transformed  by  what  they  think,  how 
important  to  have  the  organ  of  thought  renewed!      (Eph.  iv. 

23-) 

"  That  [in  order  that]  ye  may  prove  [recognize  by  the  right 
action  of  the  renewed  mind  as  worthy]  the  will  of  God,"  the 
thing  willed  by  him,  which  is  "  good  "  in  its  aim,  "  acceptable  " 
or  well-pleasing  to  him,  and  because  of  these  two  "  perfect " 
in  itself.  The  margin  of  the  Revised  Version  is  the  prefer- 
able translation  here. 

Beware  of  the  chapter  mark  which  cuts  off  these  two  verses 
from  what  precedes,  as  if  an  entirely  new  thought  were  taken 
up  with  chapter  xii.  These  two  verses  are  intimately  connected 
with  the  summing  up  at  the  close  of  chapter  xi.  That  sum- 
mary led  Paul  to  adoring  worship  as  he  viewed  God's  wide- 
reaching  plans.  And  the  idea  of  these  two  verses  is  worship 
evoked  and  provoked  by  the  same  view.  The  Romans  are  to 
present  themselves  for  a  rational  service,  a  worship  in  which 
the  spiritual  reason  leads.  This  worship  is  impossible  except 
by  men  dissevered  from  conformity  to  the  world.  He  who  is 
ruled  by  the  world's  spirit  and  pursuits,  to  whom  the  world 


220  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS  (XII.  3) 

is  the  only  great  thing,  cannot  worship.  The  spring  of  the 
worship,  as  well  as  its  power,  is  just  what  it  was  in  Paul,  a 
mind  that  discerns  God's  will  in  the  dispensational  ordering 
of  the  world  to  bring  about  its  ultimate  salvation  (see  Eph. 
iii.  14-21),  a  mind  that  sees  that  will  as  good  and  acceptable 
and  perfect.  When  the -corner-stone  of  creation  was  laid  all 
the  sons  of  God  shouted  for  joy  (Job  xxxviii.  6,  7) ;  and  he, 
too,  will  worship  who  sees  the  corner-stone  laid  by  God  in 
Christ  for  the  new  creation.  It  takes  mind  (verse  2)  to  know 
mind  (xi.  34).  These  two  mentions  of  the  word  look  each 
other  in  the  face  across  the  chapter  bar,  and  man's  mind  in  its 
moral  activity  never  acts  normally  except  in  adoring  worship. 
"  Present  your  bodies  "  is  the  first  step.  "  That  ye  may  prove 
the  will "  is  then,  first  of  all,  his  will  in  Christ  for  the  redeeming 
of  the  nations,  Jew  and  Gentile.  And  only  as  this  will  is  known 
can  any  one  see  how  he  is  himself  to  act.  The  renewed  mind 
dwelling  on  the  sublime  purposes  of  God  gains  an  increasing 
delicacy  of  discernment  of  its  own  moral  action,  and  is  pre- 
pared for  personal  guidance  in  all  questions  of  duty  and  living, 
and  to  occupy  spiritual  offices  acceptably.  It  is  at  this  point 
that  Paul  branches  off  on  duties.  The  qualification  to  dis- 
charge them  is  a  knowledge  of  God's  ways. 

3«  "  For."  What  Paul  has  said  in  verse  2  is  confirmed  by 
the  demand  upon  the  Romans  for  self-estimation.  This  re- 
quest comes  from  his  own  apostolic  "  grace."  It  is  addressed 
not  to  the  body,  but  pointedly  to  each  individual  member  in 
it,  for  one  proud,  wrong-headed  man  in  the  Roman  assembly 
could  disturb  all.  Piety  promotes  thinking,  but  let  no  man 
judge  that  his  thought  is  so  superior  that  it  can  embrace  all. 
In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  plan  of  salvation  is  the  product  of 
the  divine  mind,  let  him  think  "  soberly,"  and  not  go  beyond 
what  God  has  given  him  to  beheve  ("faith")  about  these 
things.  The  opinions  of  the  head,  the  opinions  demanded  by 
one's  theological  views,  ^re  mischievous  unless  they  are  alsQ 


(XII.  4-8)  RELIGIOUS  DUTIES  221 

the  opinions  of  that  faith  given  by  the  Holy  Ghost  Paul 
shows  his  estimate  of  the  importance  of  the  sentiment  of  this 
verse  in  that  it  is  framed  by  a  play  on  the  word  "think"  to 
fix  attention  and  remembrance  upon  it,  and  in  that  it  is  intro- 
duced by  a  reference  to  his  apostolic  authority.  The  Revised 
Version  brings  out  the  meaning  a  little  better.  Who  saw 
more  of  God's  will  than  Paul,  and  where  is  there  a  humbler 
man?     The  secret  of  it  is  that  he  knew. 

4^  5»  This  likening  of  the  Roman  church  to  the  human  body 
is  a  condensation  of  i  Corinthians  xii.  12-27,  written  less  than 
a  year  earlier,  and  both  for  the  same  purpose.  Each  mem- 
ber of  the  human  frame  has  its  own  character  and  office,  but 
no  one  is  sufficient  of  itself,  no  one  can  do  anything  apart  from 
the  whole.  And  so  let  no  one  "think"  of  himself  as  if  he 
were  not  dependent  on  all  the  rest.  There  is  a  wisdom  in 
some  far  superior  to  that  in  the  rest,  and  it  shows  that  it  is 
wisdom  in  humbly  serving  those  that  do  not  have  it  (John  xiii. 
13,  14).  When  a  man  thinks  too  "  highly  "  of  himself  to  walk 
in  union  with  God's  lowly  people,  his  estimation  of  himself  far 
surpasses  God's.  The  head  cannot  say  to  the  feet,  made  only 
for  the  earth,  "  I  have  no  need  of  you"  (i  Cor.  xii.  21). 

6-8«  The  King  James  version,  along  with  the  Revised 
Version  and  some  commentators,  separates  the  section  em- 
braced in  these  verses  from  the  one  immediately  preceding; 
but  a  semicolon  is  better  than  a  period.  The  connection  is : 
"  Every  one  members  one  of  another ;  and  [or  "  but "]  having 
gifts  differing  according  to  the  grace  that  is  given  to  us."  Of 
these  gifts  seven  are  mentioned  (Eph.  iv.  8-12  ;  i  Cor.  xii.  28) : 
four  semi-official,  prophecy,  ministry,  teaching,  and  exhorta- 
tion, and  three  general,  giving,  ruling,  showing  mercy.  These 
gifts  get  their  character  and  their  measure  in  the  divine  grace 
that  bestowed  them.  Prophecy  is  the  gift  of  uttering  God's 
will  under  the  direct  impulse  of  the  Spirit,  but  in  the  church 
it  did  not  amount  to  authoritative  inspiration  (i  Cor.  xiv,  29- 


222  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS        (XII.  6-8) 

33 ;  I  Thess.  v.  20,  21).  Ministry  is  not  so  specific.  It  em- 
braced the  preaching  of  the  gospel  (xi.  13,  rendered  "  office  "), 
the  service  in  money  (2  Cor.  ix.  i),  and  general  help  rendered 
to  the  saints  (Col.  iv.  17  ;  Heb.  i.  14).  The  teacher  set  forth 
principles  of  the  kingdom,  its  fundamental  truths,  learned  from 
the  Bible  (2  Tim.  iii.  10,  16  ;  iv.  3),  and  built  up  the  hearer  to 
distinguish  between  the  true  and  the  false  (Eph.  iv.  14).  He 
that  exhorted  encouraged  and  entreated.  In  i  Timothy  iv.  13 
two  of  these  words  come  together. 

"  He  that  giveth."  This  was  some  special  function  in  giv- 
ing, private  and  personal,  a  gift  of  faith,  and  not  general 
giving  which  belonged  to  all.  "  He  that  ruleth."  This  is  a 
faulty  rendering;  the  apostolic  churches  had  no  rulers.  It 
ought  to  be,  "  He  that  presides  "  or  "  superintends."  Paul  may 
have  referred  in  this  term  to  their  elders  (i  Thess.  v.  12  ;  i 
Tim.  v.  17).  "He  that  showeth  mercy."  Such  a  man  had 
a  gift  to  aid  those  overtaken  by  misfortune  of  any  sort.  (See 
story  of  good  Samaritan.)  The  word  "mercy"  here  has  no 
reference  to  sin. 

The  italic  words  in  the  King  James  version  fairly  represent 
the  best  interpretation  of  this  passage.  Paul  says  if  we  have 
the  gift  of  prophecy,  let  us  prophesy  in  this  manner:  "ac- 
cording to  the  proportion  [measure]  of  the  [our]  faith."  Faith 
does  not  mean  here  body  of  doctrine.  It  is  the  prophet's  own 
personal  trust.  There  was  dealt  to  him  a  measure  of  faith 
(verse  3  above)  for  this  work.  God  gave  him  an  insight  into 
the  gospel  of  Christ.  Let  his  prophecy  not  go  beyond  that 
and  become  vainglorious  and  arrogant.  Men  who  have  an 
office  are  under  strong  temptation  to  go  beyond  what  they 
know  in  it.  Thus  they  greatly  injure  themselves  in  coming  to 
believe  the  utterances  of  their  own  ignorance,  and  they  mis- 
lead others,  who  believe  them  because  they  are  accredited 
teachers.  Let  the  prophet  rigidly  limit  his  gift  by  the  faith  of 
his  gift. 


(XII.  9,  lo)  RELIGIOUS  DUTIES  223 

If  one  has  a  gift  of  "  ministry,"  let  him  wait  on  his  minister- 
ing, give  himself  to  it,  and  be  content  with  that,  while  not 
attempting  something  for  which  he  is  not  gifted.  And  so  of 
the  "  teacher,"  let  him  stick  to  his  teaching,  and  the  "  exhorter  " 
to  exhortation. 

The  man  of  means  who  has  the  blessed  gift  of  giving,  let 
him  exercise  it  not  ostentatiously,  not  to  create  obligation,  but 
in  simplicity.  The  "  ruler  "  must  not  be  slothful,  but  dihgent, 
and  the  man  who  looks  after  the  unfortunate  must  do  it  with 
a  bright  and  cheerful  aspect. 

This  section  on  the  gifts  is  plainly  a  reminiscence  of  what 
Paul  had  written  to  the  Corinthians  (i  Cor.  xii.).  He  intro- 
duces it  with  the  same  figure  about  the  body  and  lays  special 
stress  on  the  matter  of  prophecy.  He  had  learned  by  the 
shameful  misuse  of  these  gifts  at  Corinth  the  temptation  which 
they  afforded  carnal  men.  There  was  no  abuse  at  Rome,  but 
he  would  forestall  it.  The  notice  of  seven  gifts  lends  the  dis- 
cussion the  idea  of  comprehensiveness  of  all  others. 

9.  "  Let  love  be  without  dissimulation,"  without  hypocrisy. 
Feigned  love  is  nothing  but  disguised  hate.  This  little  sen- 
tence implies  more  than  it  says.  Love  was  so  prevalent,  and 
so  strongly  characterized  the  church,  that  he  who  had  it  not 
was  tempted  to  simulate  it.  This  caution  about  love  is  vir- 
tually the  theme  of  the  rest  of  the  chapter,  the  second  section 
(see  (2)  above)  beginning  here.  To  the  close  of  verse  13  the 
original  contains  no  verb,  but  is  made  up  of  participles  show- 
ing continuous  action,  or  of  adjectives  of  the  same  character. 

"  Be  [continue]  abhorring  the  evil  [especially  in  conduct] ;  be 
cleaving  to  the  good."  This  is  intended  to  regulate  moral 
sentiment. 

JO.  "In  [not  "with"]  [the  matter  of  "brotherly  love"  or] 
love  to  the  brethren  be  kindly  [kind-like]  affectioned  one  to 
another."  Let  it  not  be  a  mere  church  love,  but  such  a  love 
as  parents  have  for  children,  or  husbands  for  wives. 


224  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS    (XII.  11-13) 

In  the  matter  of  "  honor,"  without  which  sentiment  a  church 
could  not  exist,  do  not  claim  it,  but  fail  not  to  show  it.  The 
church  is  the  "  noblest  school  of  courtesy." 

\\^  "  Not  slothful  in  business."  A  much  misunderstood  and 
oft  misquoted  text.  It  has  no  reference  to  secular  business 
as  such.  The  word  means  zeal.  "  In  zeal  [the  outward]  not 
slothful ;  in  spirit  [the  inward,  the  human  spirit]  fervent ;  serv- 
ing [doing  bond-service  to]  the  Lord."  The  church  life  was 
to  be  characterized  by  energy,  by  warmth,  and  as  being  a  ser- 
vice to  the  Lord.  For  "  serving  the  Lord  "  some  read  "  serv- 
ing the  time  " ;  but  this  has  little  support. 

J 2.  "  Hope,  .  .  .  tribulation,  .  .  .  prayer."  These  three 
make  up  the  bulk  of  many  a  Christian  life.  The  hope  of  the 
better  things  at  the  end  (viii.  17-25)  is  not  to  be  calmly  held 
as  a  mere  article  of  belief,  but  as  the  inspiration  of  continual 
joy  (i  Pet.  i.  3-13). 

As  to  tribulation,— a  better  word  is  "affliction,"— it  is  sure 
to  attend  the  life  of  faith.  The  shield  against  it  is  not  fretful- 
ness  or  complaint,  but  quiet  endurance.  When  the  "hope" 
dawns  the  affliction  will  be  forever  over,  gone  like  a  painful 
dream. 

"  Prayer,"  both  church  and  individual,  is  not  to  cease  be- 
cause no  answer  seems  to  come,  but  is  to  be  a  continual  and 
persistent  ("  instant  ")  habit.  If  Paul  does  not  commend  faith 
in  prayer,  it  is  because  persistence  is  one  of  the  largest  elements 
of  faith. 

J3«  As  to  one's  possessions  or  incoming  wages  (Eph.  iv.  28), 
they  are  to  be  divided  with  those  who  have  neither.  "  Saints  " 
is  the  New  Testament  term  for  believers  in  Christ,  and  does  not 
suggest  eminence  in  piety.  (Compare  i  Cor.  i.  2  with  iii.  3 
in  the  same  epistle.)  And  every  house  is  also  to  be  a  Chris- 
tian inn,  where  behevers,  apostles,  teachers,  and  others  may 
find  gladly  given  entertainment  without  cost.  Note  that  this 
verse  enjoins  a  giving  different  from  that  in  verse  8  above. 


(Xll.  14-16)  RELIGIOUS  DUTIES  S26 

J4»  The  repetition  of  the  word  "bless"  enforces  the  duty. 
The  Roman  church,  for  more  than  two  hundred  years  under 
a  succession  of  heathen  emperors,  had  abundant  occasion  to 
recall  this  injunction  (Luke  xxiii.  34). 

I5«  "  Rejoice,  .  .  .  weep."  The  mother  enters  into  the 
innocent  joys  of  her  children  and  is  grieved  in  their  sorrows, 
for  she  is  one  with  them  and  loves  them.  And  believers  are 
"members  one  of  another."  Jesus  did  not  mourn  at  Cana, 
nor  did  he  exult  at  the  tomb  of  Lazarus.  He  wept  with  Mary 
and  Martha,  even  though  he  knew  that  in  another  moment  all 
cause  for  tears  would  be  gone.  And  may  we  not  say  that  to- 
day, enthroned  with  the  Father,  he  is  glad  in  what  gladdens 
his  and  grieved  in  what  grieves  them?  As  it  is  much  easier 
to  bewail  another's  woe,  in  that  it  does  not  excite  envy  or 
covetousness,  than  to  congratulate  him  in  his  joy,  the  apostle 
mentions  the  rejoicing  first. 

J6»  "The  same  mind  one  toward  another."  A  family  vir- 
tue again  in  which  there  is  a  common  regard  and  a  common 
understanding.  Each  thinks  affectionately  well  of  the  other. 
"  Mind  not  high  things."  Diotrephes  missed  this  (3  John  9). 
So  did  Absalom  in  his  yearning,  "  Oh  that  I  were  made  judge! " 
(2  Sam.  XV.  4.)  So  does  every  one  who  seeks  for  place  above 
his  fellows  (Mark  x.  44,  45).  The  rose  by  the  dusty  wayside 
is  as  sweet  as  the  rose  in  the  king's  garden.  The  human  re- 
gard worth  having  is  given  for  what  one  is  rather  than  for 
where  he  is. 

"  But  condescend  to  men  of  low  estate."  The  original  is 
not  decisive  as  between  lowly  things  and  men  that  are  lowly. 
On  the  whole,  the  latter  is  preferable.  "  Condescend  "  is  an 
unfortunate  word  and  must  be  rejected ;  condescension  has  no 
place  in  the  church.  Some  render,  "  be  carried  away  with  " 
the  lowly — give  yourself  to  them.  The  world  neglects  and  de- 
spises them ;  Christ  loves  them  and  died  for  them.  There  is 
often  more  genuine  worth  and  manhood  in  the  alleys  than  in 


226  THE  EPISTLE   TO    THE  ROMANS    (XII.  17,  18) 

the  avenues;  and  Christian  love  goes  where  love  is  most 
needed.  It  is  "  carried  away  "  in  the  service  of  need.  Christ 
in  help  to  one  lowly  woman  was  so  "  carried  away  "  that  he 
had  no  desire  to  eat  (John  iv.  31,  32). 

"  Be  not  wise  in  your  own  conceits."  The  word  "  wise  "  is 
the  same  which  we  have  had  twice  before  in  the  verse — 
"mind";  but  it  cannot  be  shown  readily  in  a  translation. 
Think  the  same  things  toward  one  another ;  think  not  on  high 
things ;  think  not  highly  of  yourself.  Self-conceit,  too  high  an 
estimate  of  one's  self,  is  the  chief  hindrance  to  the  three  duties 
enjoined  just  before.  The  man  who  complacently  reflects  on 
his  own  abilities  or  exaltation  is  feeding  on  his  own  vitals. 
He  will  grow  lean.  He  who  in  self-forgetfulness  is  carried 
away  with  the  lowly  grows  large  of  heart.  The  man  who  is 
above  doing  what  Christ  did  for  men  is  far  beneath  his  ap- 
proval. 

J7»  "  Recompense  to  no  man  evil  for  evil."  Verse  14  for- 
bade the  feeling,  this  the  act;  it  is  only  love  that  can  obey 
either. 

"  Provide  things  honest  in  the  sight  of  all  men."  Have  a 
care,  see  to  it,  that  all  your  life  is  such  that  you  do  not  awaken 
the  prejudice  or  contempt  of  men ;  let  your  conduct  commend 
itself  to  them.  This  verse  looks  at  the  behavior  of  the  church 
with  reference  to  those  outside.  This  is  not  subserv'ience  to 
public  opinion.  Jesus  would  not  "offend"  others  (Matt.  xvii. 
27).  It  is  a  part  of  Christianity  to  commend  itself  to  the 
world  by  a  well-ordered  life.  The  word  "provide"  in  its 
modem  narrow  sense  of  furnishing  or  supplying  is  misleading. 
The  injunction  refers  not  to  acts,  but  to  the  prudence  which 
regulates  them. 

XZ*.  "  As  much  as  heth  in  you,  live  peaceably  with  all  men." 
Seek  peace.  The  other  party  may  not  yield,  but  let  it  be  no 
fault  of  yours  if  he  does  not.     You  are  not  guiltless  until  you 


(XII.  19-21)  RELIGIOUS  DUTIES  ^21 

have  exhausted  every  means  to  bring  about  reconciliation. 
How  could  church  quarrels  flourish  if  men  heeded  this? 

J9»  "  Dearly  beloved  [by  God],  avenge  not  yourselves." 
You  need  not,  since  you  are  his  dear  children  (Luke  xviii.  7  ; 
Rev.  xix.  2).  The  sentiment  of  verses  14  and  17  is  brought 
up  a  third  time.  Bless  him  that  wrongs  you  (verse  14);  do 
him  no  evil  (verse  17) ;  do  not  seek  his  punishment  before  the 
court  or  otherwise  (verse  19).  The  desire  for  revenge  is  not 
Christian. 

"  But  rather  give  place  unto  [the]  wrath  "  of  God  in  the  day 
of  judgment.  That  the  taking  of  vengeance  does  not  belong 
to  man  as  man,  but  that  it  will  surely  be  meted  out  to  the 
wrong-doer,  is  enforced  by  a  crisp  couplet  from  Scripture  en- 
forcing these  two  points.  Vengeance  is  God's  prerogative; 
he  will  not  fail  to  inflict  it  (Deut.  xxxii.  35). 

20«  "  Therefore  if  thine  enemy  hunger."  The  "  therefore  " 
in  all  modern  revisions  gives  place  to  ''but."  The  verse  is 
not  a  deduction  from  what  precedes,  but  states  a  course  of 
conduct  for  the  wronged  man  the  opposite  of  that  which  the 
flesh  would  prompt.  Instead  of  taking  vengeance  on  his 
enemy,  he  is  to  feed  him  and  give  him  drink  if  the  opportunity 
presents  itself.  The  verse  is  a  quotation  from  the  Scriptures 
again  (Pro v.  xxv.  21,  22). 

"  Heap  coals  of  fire  on  his  head."  This  is  the  only  venge- 
ance you  are  to  inflict,  the  coals  of  red-hot  love.  God's 
vengeance  is  of  another  sort.  This  is  the  only  kind  allowed 
you.  The  explanation  that  kindness  shown  the  wrong-doer 
will  awaken  burning  shame  in  him  seems  overdrawn. 

2\*  "  Be  not  overcome  of  evil,"  as  you  would  be  if  you 
cried  for  vengeance ;  you  would  be  conquered  then ;  "  but 
overcome  evil  with  good,"  the  only  weapon  in  your  hand,  and 
a  most  effective  one.  For  he  who  cannot  be  moved  from  the 
basis  of  love  is  a  victor  even  though  he  cannot  win  his  enemy. 


228  THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS         (XII.  21) 

To  win  himself  is  a  much  greater  triumph.  This  verse  looks 
not  alone  at  the  one  just  before  it,  but  also  back  over  the  whole 
section.  The  section  looks  like  a  cluster  of  rules  or  precepts ; 
but  it  is  not  such.  Its  one  key-note,  its  theme  through  all  the 
variations  of  the  different  verses,  is  love.  It  is  i  Corinthians 
xiii.  4-7  put  in  another  form  for  the  less  ideal,  but  more 
practical,  Romans. 


CHAPTER   XIII 

CIVIL    DUTIES    OF    BELIEVERS 

There  are  obligations  flowing  from  the  endowments  of 
certain  gifts,  and  other  obhgations  flowing  from  fraternal  re- 
lations, obligations  of  love.  The  former  were  discussed  in 
xii.  1-8  and  the  latter  in  xii.  9-21.  These  are  all  purely  spir- 
itual obligations  having  their  source  in  the  relation  to  Christ. 
But  the  Christian  has  another  relation,  a  natural  relation,  hav- 
ing its  origin  not  in  Christ,  but  in  God.  The  former  chapter 
is  spiritual  or  Christian ;  the  one  before  us  is  divine.  These 
are  clearly  distinct.  Confusion  here  makes  church  and  state 
one,  and  reduces  Christianity  to  sociology.  It  is  easy  to  dis- 
tinguish between  what  is  spiritual  and  what  is  divine.  The 
Holy  Spirit  has  brought  about  institutions  and  relations  un- 
known to  nature.  The  church  with  its  various  functions  is 
the  sum  of  these,  and  they  had  no  existence  before  Christ  came. 
But  there  were  men  and  relations  long  before.  God  instituted 
the  latter  not  for  the  church,  for  there  was  none,  but  for  men. 
They  are  divine,  but  not  spiritual.  One  of  them  is  marriage. 
God  gave  it.  Unregenerate  men  without  the  Spirit  enter  this 
relation  and  are  under  solemn  obligations  to  preserve  it  in- 
violate. The  Sabbath  is  another.  It  was  given  to  man,  and 
as  such  he  is  bound  to  keep  it.  The  state  may  enforce  its 
obligations,  as  it  does  that  of  marriage,  and  it  would  but  for 
the  hopeless  confusion  into  which  the  church  long  ago  fell  on 

229 


230  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS         (XIII.  i) 

this  point.  The  state  is  the  sum  of  divine  institutions  as  the 
church  is  of  the  spiritual.  A  Christian  is  a  citizen  of  the 
world  as  clearly  as  he  is  a  member  of  the  church.  Union 
with  the  body  of  Christ  absolves  him  from  no  duty  that  be- 
longs to  men  as  men.  On  the  other  hand,  Paul  enforces  these 
duties  on  the  believer  by  his  relation  to  Christ.  When  the 
natural  man  violates  a  divine  institution  he  sins  against  God ; 
but  the  same  violation  in  a  behever  would  in  addition  be  a  sin 
against  Christ. 

The  consideration  of  these  matters  falls  under  three  heads : 
(i)  duties  to  the  state  (verses  1-7) ;  (2)  to  the  citizens  of  the 
state  (verses  8-10);  (3)  the  Christian  enforcement  of  these 
civil  duties  (verses  11-14). 

J.  "  Let  every  soul  [none  is  exempt,  not  even  the  pope]  be 
subject  [submit  himself]  unto  the  higher  powers,"  the  civil 
authorities  that  are  over  him.  This  is  the  broad  general  prin- 
ciple; its  essence  is  submission  (i  Pet.  ii.  13-17).  Within  this 
limit  it  does  not  forbid  teaching  and  agitation  for  better  govern- 
ment if  these  do  not  lead  to  resistance,  but  under  this  princi- 
ple it  is  hard  to  see  how  a  Christian  can  lead  in  a  rebelHon. 
Paul's  words  are  unmistakable,  and  yet  there  stand  Cromwell 
and  Washington! 

"  For  there  is  no  power  [no  civil  authority]  but  of  [from] 
God:  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God."  Or,  "And 
those  that  are  have  been  ordained  by  God."  This  is  said  to 
enforce  ("for")  the  injunction  of  submission.  Civil  govern- 
ment has  its  source  in  God,  and  all  constituted  power  is  ap- 
pointed and  ordained  by  him.  The  cruel  abuses  in  govern- 
ments are  no  necessary  part  of  them  and  do  not  invalidate 
their  divine  charter  any  more  than  the  abuses  of  marriage  rob 
it  of  its  sacredness.  Any  government  is  preferable  to  anarchy, 
just  as  poorly  enforced  marriage  laws  are  better  than  none. 
Man  abuses  all  God's  gifts. 

Paul  in  writing  this  was  writing  to  a  point.     Only  a  few 


(XIII.  2)  CIVIL  DUTIES  OF  BELIEVERS  231 

years  before  the  Jews  in  Rome  had  rebelled  and  were  expelled 
the  city  (Acts  xviii.  2),  Priscilla  and  Aquila  among  them.  In 
their  daily  toil  in  Corinth  in  making  tents,  Paul  and  Aquila 
must  have  often  discussed  this  expulsion.  The  apostle  knew 
those  of  his  own  flesh  to  be  very  restive  under  the  Roman  yoke. 
Statesman  that  he  was,  he  may  have  forecast  the  destruction 
of  the  Jewish  nation,  which  occurred  within  little  more  than 
a  decade  from  the  time  that  this  chapter  was  penned.  He 
knew  that  Jews  everywhere  disputed  the  authority  of  Rome, 
and  that  they  held  the  fanatical  doctrine,  sometimes  appear- 
ing sporadically  in  more  modern  church  history,  that  God's 
child  is  directly  responsible  to  God  alone  and  that  the  king's 
authority  is  a  usurpation.  That  a  Gentile  prince  could  have 
divine  authority  was  a  doctrine  hard  for  a  Jew  to  accept,  es- 
pecially when  that  authority  was  exercised  over  him.  If  Paul 
was  hated  for  this  teaching,  .as  he  must  have  been,  by  the 
Jewish  nation,  Titus  gave  him  a  thorough  vindication  twelve 
years  later.  The  disregard  of  this  verse  was  the  Jews'  national 
ruin. 

2,  "  Whosoever  therefore  resisteth  the  power  [it  ought  to 
read,  "  So  that  he  that  sets  himself  against  the  power  "],  resist- 
eth the  ordinance  of  God."  This  is  the  logical  and  necessary 
result  in  rebellion,  for  government  is  not  man's,  but  God's. 

"  And  they  that  resist."  Paul  changes  from  the  singular  to 
the  plural  in  passing  from  the  statement  of  the  principle  to 
the  consequence  on  those  who  violate  it.  This  consequence 
is  not  "  damnation,"  but  condemnation.  Damnation  suggests 
future  eternal  punishment,  which  is  not  meant  here.  The  con- 
demnation is  from  God  through  human  instrumentality.  Godet 
remarks  that  Paul  reproduces  Jesus  here  (Matt.  xxvi.  52). 

It  is  not  intended  to  be  taught  here  that  the  subject  must 
do  at  the  command  of  the  governor  that  which  is  morally 
wrong.  God  has  sometimes  honored  his  people  by  allowing 
circumstances  to  arise  in  which  they  could  suffer  for  his  name's 


2S2  TH^  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMAICS     (XlII.  3, 4) 

sake  and  for  conscience'  sake.     One  can  refuse  to  do  wrong 
and  undergo  the  penalty  without  resisting  the  power. 

3,  This  verse  looks  back  to  the  first  and  gives  an  additional 
reason  "for"  subjection  to  the  "higher  powers."  Rulers, 
with  few  exceptions,  have  punished  only  evil-doers.  The 
Roman  persecution  of  the  church  was  not  malicious,  but  arose 
from  the  mistaken  notion  that  the  peace  and  safety  of  the 
state  were  imperiled  by  the  Christians'  refusal  to  honor  the 
gods.  More  than  once  Paul  found  protection  in  Roman  law 
(Acts  xviii.  12-17;  xix.  35-41;  xxii.  25).  The  so-called 
church  itself  has  been  the  worst  persecutor. 

"  Wilt  thou  then  not  be  afraid  of  the  power?  "  Do  you 
wish  to  live  without  fear  of  the  state's  authority?  Do  right 
and  you  will  have  no  cause  for  alarm.  Rulers  have  troubles 
and  anxieties  enough,  and  the  church  ought  so  to  live  that  the 
governors  could  say  they  have  none  from  it. 

4.  This  verse  bears  logically  on  the  last.  There  is  no  fear 
of  the  ruler  when  you  do  good;  "for"  he  is  God's  minister 
to  thee  for  "  good."  God  gives  rulers  in  his  people's  behalf. 
Therefore,  to  caricature  them  in  public  prints  is  grossly  irrev- 
erent and  promotive  of  lawlessness,  and  to  fail  to  pray  for  them 
"  first  of  all,"  a  failure  all  too  general,  is  an  express  violation 
of  God's  Word  (i  Tim.  ii.  1-3). 

"  But  if  thou  do  that  which  is  evil,"  then  fear ;  for  God  did 
not  put  the  sword  in  the  ruler's  hand  "  in  vain,"  as  a  meaning- 
less symbol  of  power.  That  sword  has  a  solemn  purpose. 
The  governor's  office  has  two  sides :  on  one,  it  defends  the 
good  ;  on  the  other,  he  is  "  a  revenger  to  execute  [God's]  wrath 
upon  him  that  doeth  evil."  Punishment  is  usually  meted  out 
in  the  name  of  the  state.  A  higher  position  might  be  taken. 
It  might  be  inflicted  in  the  name  of  God.  Civil  penalties, 
including  capital  punishment,  are  an  expression  of  his  will. 
Twice  in  this  verse  the  ruler  gets  a  very  solemn  title,  "  minister 
of  God  " — twice  because  of  his  twofold  office.    The  state  and 


(XIII.  5-7)         CIVIL  DUTIES  OF  BELIEVERS  233 

the  church  have  each  a  place  in  the  world.  If  God's  ap- 
pointed and  estabh'shed  order  is  preserved  neither  will  invade 
the  function  of  the  other. 

5*  "  Wherefore  [as  civil  government  is  God's  appointment] 
ye  must  [necessity]  be  subject  [be  in  submission  to  it],  not 
only  for  wrath  [not  only  in  fear  of  the  sword],  but  also  for 
conscience'  sake."  Resistance  is  not  merely  inexpedient;  it 
is  morally  wrong. 

d^  "  For  for  this  cause."  Better,  "  For  on  this  account." 
By  the  first  "  for  "  it  is  shown  that  this  verse  confirms  the  last 
one.  On  this  account,  that  there  is  a  moral  necessity  for 
submission  to  authority,  "  tribute,"  or  tax,  is  regularly  paid. 
Instead  of  "pay  ye  "  it  ought  to  be  "  ye  pay."  Taxes  are  not 
merely  an  imposition  of  the  government,  but  are  made  neces- 
sary by  its  divine  character. 

''For  they  [magistrates]  are  God's  ministers."  Paul  uses 
now  a  very  different  word  for  minister.  In  verse  4  the  word 
means  servant.  Here  it  means  one  of  a  priestly  character. 
Government  is  God's,  and  the  magistrate  is  his  sacred  official 
through  whom  he  administers  it,  "  a  divinely  consecrated  sac- 
rificial service"  (Meyer).  "Attending  continually  upon  this 
very  thing" — of  administering  this  sacred  governmental  office 
for  God.  As  it  is  not  an  occasional,  but  a  continuous  duty, 
God  has  appointed  by  taxes  that  rulers  should  be  paid.  It  is 
the  divine  decree  that  to  every  office,  the  Jewish  priesthood, 
the  magistracy,  and  the  gospel  ministry,  there  is  attached  a 
remuneration.  "The  laborer  is  worthy  of  his  hire"  (Luke 
X.  7). 

?♦  "Render  therefore  to  all  [in  authority]  their  dues." 
Omit  "therefore."  Four  specifications  are  given:  render 
"  tribute,"  personal  or  property  tax,  to  him  to  whom  it  is  due ; 
"  custom,"  import  or  export  dues,  to  him  to  whom  it  is  due ; 
"  fear,"  reverence  (Meyer  says  "  veneration  "),  to  him  who  bears 
the  sword  for  God;  "honor"  to  all  his  subordinates, 


234  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS    (XIII.  8-10) 

In  this  discussion  Paul  has  so  framed  his  language  (i)  that 
it  is  applicable  to  every  form  of  government  without  recom- 
mending or  condemning  any.  (2)  He  does  not  subordinate 
the  church  to  the  state  nor  the  state  to  the  church.  They  are 
different  in  their  character,  the  one  natural,  the  other  spiritual, 
and  their  aims  are  different.  The  state  promotes  moral  Hving, 
the  church  spiritual  living.  (3)  Paul  must  have  been  aware 
that  many  rulers,  too  many,  were  immoral  and  selfish  men, 
and  that  many  of  their  enactments  were  arbitrary  and  oppres' 
sive ;  but  in  such  cases  neither  he  nor  the  Bible  has  one  word 
of  advice  for  the  behever,  or  but  one— submission.  David 
when  cruelly  persecuted  by  Saul  refused  again  and  again  to 
use  the  advantage  that  fell  to  him  against  the  king.  He  con- 
stantly yielded,  and  trusted  to  God  for  his  rights  (i  Sam.  xxvi. 
9,  10).  God  appoints  governors  for  a  good  purpose,  and 
when  they  fail  to  serve  it  he  removes  them  by  his  own  means 
(Acts  xii.  23).  (4)  Paul  seems  to  say  nothing  for  the  senti- 
ment of  patriotism ;  and  yet  he  does.  The  law-abiding  citizen 
is  the  loftiest  patriot. 

8-JO*  Having  shown  the  believer's  duties  toward  magis- 
trates, Paul  naturally  comes  to  civil  duties  toward  all  men. 
(See  (2)  above.)  The  very  first  injunction,  "Owe  no  man," 
shows  that  we  are  outside  the  church.  This  section  is  not  a 
resumption  of  the  last  chapter,  where  we  had  the  spiritual  re- 
lation of  brother  to  brother  in  the  church.  The  believer  oc- 
cupies also  another  sphere  in  his  relations  with  his  fellow- 
behevers  and  with  all  men  in  the  world.  While  the  Spirit  rules 
in  the  church,  the  world  is  a  world  under  moral  law.  Hence 
law  is  not  mentioned  in  the  last  chapter,  but  here  it  is  again 
and  again  exalted  as  a  matter  to  be  fulfilled,  and  the  second 
table  is  quoted.  Neither  is  the  word  "brother"  used  here, 
but  the  civic  term  "neighbor."  Paul  in  reminding  his  readers 
here  of  their  duty  to  fulfil  moral  law  does  not  contradict  what 
he  said  in  vi.  14  and  x.  4.     The  Christian's  relation  to  God 


(XIII.  11)  CIVIL   DUTIES   OF  BELIEVERS  235 

is  not  legal ;  his  relation  to  the  world  is  nothing  else.  "  Christ 
is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  "  in  the  spiritual  sphere, 
but  in  the  world  law  holds;  and  it  holds  all  who  are  in  the 
world,  else  why  does  Paul  here  enjoin  it? 

But  God  demands  much  more  of  the  believer  than  the  state 
asks.  The  latter  says,  "  Thou  shalt  not  injure  thy  neighbor." 
God  says,  "  Thou  shalt  love  him  as  thyself ;"  and  short  of  this 
love  the  civil  law  is  not  fulfilled.  Love  is  not  the  "  fulfiUing," 
but  the  fulfilment,  of  the  law.  This  is  impossible  to  men  in 
their  natural  state,  but  not  to  him  whose  heart  is  made  like 
God's.  It  is  by  this  simple  but  powerful  principle  of  love 
that  the  Christian  not  only  fulfils  the  law,  but  finds  his  free- 
dom in  it.  Love  takes  the  place  of  the  letter  and  makes  all 
moral  duties  not  only  light,  but  a  delight.  He  that  loves  will 
not  continue  to  be  owing  any  man  anything  but  "  to  love  one 
another,"  a  debt  which  cannot  be  discharged.  Paul  says 
"  one  another  "  because  at  first  he  has  no  one  in  view  but  be- 
lievers. Love  will  restrain  a  man  from  making  debts  which 
he  cannot  pay,  and  thus  save  the  church  from  much  scandal. 
Love  will  restrain  a  man  from  adultery,  murder,  theft,  false 
witness,  covetousness.  These  are  not  all,  but  only  instances, 
for  Paul  adds  the  sweeping  words,  "  If  there  be  any  other 
commandment,"  love  will  fulfil  it.  And  love  alone  can  keep 
law.  The  state  must  use  the  sword,  because,  though  it  can 
make  good  laws,  it  cannot  inspire  the  love  that  heeds  them. 

n»  "And  that,  knowing  the  time."  Here  begins  an  en- 
forcement of  what  was  just  said,  followed  by  some  exhorta- 
tion against  fleshly  indulgence.  (See  (3)  above.)  The  prin- 
cipal argument  is  in  the  imminence  of  the  consummation  of 
their  hope. 

"And  that"  should  be  "And  this."  "And  this  do  [viz., 
"  owe  no  man  anything,  but  to  love  one  another,"  which  love  is 
a  fulfilment  of  the  law] — this  do,  knowing  [as  you  do]  the  sea- 
son ["  time  "  (i  Thess.  v.  i)],  that  now  it  is  high  time  to  awake 


236  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS    (XIII.  12, 13) 

out  of  sleep  [to  cast  off  inactivity  in  worship,  and  work]."  Be 
active.  "  For  now  is  our  salvation  nearer  than  when  we  be- 
lieved." This  is  the  reason  for  awakening  from  sleep,  a  rea- 
son so  often  given  in  the  New  Testament  (Heb.  x.  37  ;  Phil, 
iii.  20,  21  ;  Gal.  vi.  9).  The  salvation  is  not  that  from  sin, 
which  the  Romans  already  had  (i  Pet.  i.  9),  but  the  comple- 
tion of  it  in  the  glorification  awaiting  them  at  the  coming  of 
Christ  (i  Pet.  i.  5,  6).  When  Paul  says  that  this  salvation  is 
"  nearer  "  he  is  not  speaking  chronologically,  nor  is  he  imply- 
ing an  expectation  of  it  in  his  day.  He  did  not  know  the  date 
of  the  appearance  of  Christ.  Just  as  one  might  say  death  is 
always  near  and  live  in  the  power  of  such  a  sentiment,  though 
the  death  is  long  postponed.  Paul's  language  here,  as  else- 
where on  this  topic,  is  adapted  to  every  generation  of  believers, 
who,  not  knowing  the  time,  can  at  least  say  salvation  is 
"  nearer." 

\2*  "  The  night  [of  the  Lord's  absence]  is  far  spent,  the  day 
[to  be  ushered  in  by  his  appearance]  is  at  hand."  It  was 
Christ  who  imposed  this  attitude  of  alert  expectation  on  his 
followers,  and  the  apostolic  church  seems  to  have  had  no  other 
(i  Thess.  i.  9,  10).  He  also  warned  against  a  seeming  delay 
(Matt.  xxiv.  48).  It  belongs  to  the  servant  to  watch  at  all 
times,  for  the  Master  comes  in  his  own  time.  "Therefore" 
the  works  befitting  only  darkness  are  to  be  "  cast  off  "  as  an 
unclean  garment,  and  the  "armor"  (Eph.  vi.  13)  suitable  to 
the  light  when  it  dawns  is  to  be  put  on. 

t3«  "  Let  us  walk  honestly,  as  in  the  day."  They  are  not 
in  the  day,  but  they  are  to  live  as  if  they  were  in  it.  This  is 
the  emphatic  phrase  in  this  sentence.  The  lightning  flash  that 
ushers  in  the  day  will  not  change  a  man's  walk ;  it  will  merely 
show  what  it  is.  Therefore  let  us  walk  becomingly  ("honest- 
ly ")  now.  Boise  translates  the  remainder  of  the  verse  thus : 
"  Not  in  carousals  and  intoxications,  not  in  licentious  acts  and 
debaucheries,  not  in  strife  and  jealousy."     It  is  to  be  noticed 


(XIII.  14)  CIVIL   DUTIES   OF  BELIEVERS  237 

that  strife  and  jealousy  are  classed  with  these  coarse  indul- 
gences of  the  animal  nature  and  made  their  climax.  The  con- 
tentious, envious  man  ranks  with  the  drunkard  and  the 
debauchee. 

J4»  "  But  put  ye  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  He  is  first 
put  on  in  baptism  (vi.  3 ;  Gal.  iii.  27),  and  then  put  on  daily 
in  living  in  the  obedience,  disposition,  and  hopes  suggested 
by  his  threefold  name,  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  As  Lord  he  rules ; 
as  Jesus  he  lived ;  as  Christ  he  is  the  surety  of  all  hopes  (Phil, 
iii.  20 ;  Eph.  iv.  24 ;  Col.  iii.  12).  To  put  him  on  is  to  walk 
in  the  power  of  his  life  (viii.  2). 

"And  make  not  provision  for  the  flesh,  to  fulfil  the  lusts 
thereof."  "Provision"  here  is  misleading.  (See  on  xii.  17.) 
Literally  translated,  the  sentence  reads,  "  Take  no  forethought 
for  the  flesh,  for  [its]  desires."  The  flesh  here,  as  usual,  is  the 
whole  man  viewed  apart  from  his  relation  to  Christ.  It  is  the 
seat  of  all  the  sins  mentioned  in  the  last  verse,  and  is  a  bundle 
of  desires  ("lusts ").  No  forethought  is  to  be  taken  for  these. 
(See  on  vi.  12.)  The  heathen  went  astray  by  them  (i.  24). 
They  drown  men  in  destruction  and  perdition  (i  Tim.  vi.  9). 
And  they  that  are  Christ's  do  not  take  forethought  for  their 
gratification ;  Christ's  followers  "  have  crucified  the  flesh  with 
the  affections  and  lusts  "  (Gal.  v.  24).  They  that  are  his  have 
daily  needs  for  which  the  heavenly  Father  has  made  bountiful 
provision  (Phil.  iv.  19;  Matt.  vi.  8,  t^t^\  Luke  xii.  30),  but 
none  for  their  own  desires,  for  these  are  all  sinful. 

This  is  the  Christian  citizen's  chapter.  He  is  to  be  loyal  to 
the  government,  just  toward  his  neighbor,  and  clean  in  his 
personal  life.  The  means  for  all  this  is  Christ,  and  the  root 
of  failure  is  self— forethought  for  desires. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

FRATERNAL  DUTIES  IN  MATTERS  OF  CONSCIENCE 

From  speaking  of  those  who  were  too  lax  in  the  indulgence 
of  natural  appetites,  the  subject  passes  mainly  to  those  who  are 
too  scrupulous.  The  object  is  not  to  remove  these  scruples, 
but  to  show  those  who  have  them  and  those  who  have  them 
not  how  to  live  in  Christian  peace.  The  discussion  runs  to  the 
thirteenth  verse  of  the  next  chapter,  and  comes  under  three 
heads:  (i)  conscience  in  the  matter  of  eating  and  drinking 
(xiv.  1-12),  an  exhortation  for  the  most  part  to  the  weak;  (2) 
the  right  use  of  liberty  by  the  stronger  brethren  (xiv.  13-23) ; 
(3)  Christian  forbearance  is  the  will  of  the  Lord  in  accordance 
with  his  work  for  common  worship  (xv.  1-13). 

Conscience  in  matters  of  eating  and  drinking  did  not  origi- 
nate with  Moses.  It  is  deeply  ingrained  in  human  nature, 
and  existed  long  before  his  time.  By  codifying  and  making 
authoritative  dietary  laws  he  probably  relieved  more  than  he 
burdened  the  conscience  of  his  day.  Paul  was  given  a  deep 
insight  into  the  religious  heart  to  write  this  chapter.  The 
experience  of  the  centuries,  the  present  as  much  as  any,  has 
shown  that  the  church  can  be  disturbed  by  dietary  questions 
quite  as  much  as  by  those  that  are  purely  spiritual.  Paul  lays 
down  no  rule  for  the  Romans  in  this  matter.  He  insists  mainly 
for  the  guidance  of  the  stronger  brother  that  he  direct  his 

238 


(XIV.  1-3)  MATTERS   OF  CONSCIENCE  239 

conduct  at  the  table  by  love,  the  principle  that  guides  also  in 
the  matters  considered  in  the  last  two  chapters. 

The  question  was  not  as  serious  in  Rome  as  at  other  places. 
It  was  not  one  of  eating  that  which  had  been  offered  to  idols 
(i  Cor.  viii.) ;  it  did  not  touch  the  doctrine  of  justification 
(Gal.  ii.  1 2-21),  nor  was  it  raised  by  the  Judaizers  (Col.  ii.  16). 
It  does  not  seem  to  have  been  a  question  wholly  between  the 
Jewish  and  the  Gentile  element  in  the  church.  The  weak 
Gentile  was  as  Hkely  to  have  scruples  as  his  Jewish  brother. 
They  arose  then,  as  they  do  now,  from  a  natural  infirmity  of 
the  understanding.  Grace  sanctifies  the  heart  much  more  eas- 
ily than  the  head. 

\^  "Him  that  is  weak  in  the  faith."  Omit  "the."  Faith 
is  weak  by  lack  of  moral  discernment  and  understanding.  It 
has  no  breadth.  It  knows  that  Christ  saves  from  sin,  but  it 
does  not  perceive  the  relations  of  this  salvation  to  hving,  and 
so  is  full  of  small  scruples,  whose  observance  it  invests  with 
the  highest  importance.  At  the  same  time  it  is  blind  to  real 
piety.  It  would  not  eat  meat,  but  it  would  condemn  harshly 
the  man  who  does,  exalting  its  own  abstinence  far  above 
Christian  love. 

But  this  weak  believer,  weak  in  his  faith,  but  correspond- 
ingly strong  in  his  scruples,  is  to  be  received  into  Christian 
fellowship,  but  not  to  be  disputed  with  about  his  thoughts. 
This  seems  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  "  not  to  doubtful 
disputations."  He  cannot  be  argued  out  of  his  views ;  argu- 
ment would  only  confirm  him  in  them.  He  must  grow  out  of 
them,  and  meanwhile  he  is  not  to  be  criticized  and  judged, 
but  loved.  This  verse  is  addressed  to  the  stronger  brethren, 
and  may  imply  both  that  they  are  right  and  are  in  the  ma- 
jority. 

2.  Omit  the  "for."  This  verse,  however,  shows  to  what 
the  first  one  points. 

3^  The  man  who  sees  that  there  is  no  piety  in  the  kind  of 


240  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS       (XIV.  4, 5) 

food  he  eats  may  look  with  contempt  on  his  poor  narrow 
brother  over  his  dish  of  vegetable  food ;  for  there  is  nothing 
on  which  a  man  prides  himself  more  than  on  his  superior 
knowledge  of  truth.  On  the  other  hand,  the  weak  brother, 
seeing  the  other  with  his  meat  and  wine,  may  condemn  him 
as  no  saint,  for  the  table  is  the  narrow  bound  of  his  field  of 
morals.  The  weak  man  is  not  to  judge  the  strong  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  his  liberty,  because  God  has  "  received  "  the  latter. 
The  reference  is  to  the  time  of  his  conversion. 

4»  This  verse  is  a  sharp  thrust  at  the  vegetarian.  It  utterly 
denies  his  right  to  judge.  The  man  who  has  confidence  to 
eat  meat  is  the  Lord's  servant,  not  the  weak  brother's.  And 
he  stands  or  falls  to  his  "  own  "  Lord,  who  is  Christ.  There 
is  point  in  the  word  "  own."  But  he  will  not  fall  in  the  exer- 
cise of  Christian  liberty.  "  Yea,  he  shall  be  holden  up  :  for  the 
Lord  [not  "  God  "]  is  able  to  make  him  stand."  The  reference 
is  not  to  the  final  judgment,  but  to  his  daily  walk,  from  which 
the  weak  brother  is  sure  that  he  will  decline  because  of  his 
meat.  Here  is  an  assurance  to  liberty  which  the  abstinence 
of  a  weak  brother  lacks.  He  has  no  promise  to  be  holden  up  ; 
rather  a  stern  rebuke  that  he  has  forgotten  Matthew  vii.  1-5. 
It  is  also  plainly  implied  that  the  strong  brother  is  not  respon- 
sible to  the  church  in  the  use  of  his  liberty,  but  only  to  the 
Lord.  The  church  has  not  a  shred  of  authority  in  this  mat- 
ter ;  it  may  not  say  what  diet  a  member  shall  or  shall  not  eat. 
Christ  cleansed  all  foods  (Mark  vii.  18,  19). 

5^  "  One  man  esteemeth  one  day  above  another."  Closely 
connected  with  this  question  of  food  is  that  about  holy  days. 
It  is  impossible  to  say  that  this  general  language  does  not 
include  the  Sabbath.  There  is  a  Sabbath  and  it  is  divinely 
instituted  (Mark  ii.  27,  28),  but  there  is  not  a  line  nor  a  word 
in  the  New  Testament  about  how  it  is  to  be  observed.  In 
Judaism  the  law  of  observance  was  plain  enough  (Exod.  xxxv. 
2).     May  the  church  or  any  man  in  it  prescribe  how  a  holy 


(XIV.  6-8)  MA  TTERS   OF  CONSCIENCE  241 

day  shall  be  kept?  Paul's  rule  is,  "Let  every  [each]  man  be 
fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind."  He  leaves  it  to  that  which 
Rome  condemns,  private  judgment.  He  uses  the  word  "  mind  " 
because  it  is  a  question  for  an  enlightened  understanding. 

6.  "  He  that  regardeth  the  day,  regardeth  it  unto  the  Lord." 
And  since  he  is  honoring  God  in  his  observance  he  is  neither 
to  be  despised  nor  hindered.  Paul  has  said  nothing  here 
about  the  nature  of  the  day ;  it  is  purely  a  question  of  regard 
for  it.  One  believer  is  devout  on  every  day ;  another  believer 
is  more  devout  on  special  set  days  than  on  others. 

The  second  sentence  in  this  verse  is  omitted  on  strong  evi- 
dence by  most  modern  editors. 

The  discrimination  in  days  is  of  the  same  character  as  the 
discrimination  in  food.  The  root  of  it  in  either  party  is  regard 
for  the  Lord.  It  is  "  unto  the  Lord,"  in  deference  to  the  re- 
lation held  with  him.  Therefore  there  should  be  no  despising 
and  no  judging.  Each  party  is  serving  the  same  Lord,  but 
in  different  ways.  The  proof  that  it  is  service  to  him  is  that 
"he  that  eateth"  meat  gives  God  thanks  for  the  meat;  and 
"  he  that  eateth  not "  meat,  but  dines  on  vegetables,  does  so 
out  of  regard  for  the  Lord,  for  he  too  gives  thanks  to  God  for 
the  vegetables.  This  consideration  goes  to  show  that  there  is 
little  merit  in  mere  breadth  of  view,  and  little  demerit  in  nar- 
rowness. The  merit  lies  in  the  thankfulness  with  which  each 
man  partakes  of  his  own  particular  kind  of  food,  and  in  the 
matter  of  thanks  they  stand  on  the  same  level  before  the 
Lord.  A  man's  views  about  these  minor  morals  have  little  to 
do  with  that  standing. 

It  must  be  noted  on  this  verse  that  the  Roman  Christians 
were  in  the  habit  of  giving  thanks  for  food  at  the  time  of  eat- 
ing; they  had  Christ's  example  (Mark  viii.  6,  7). 

7,8*  These  two  verses  bear  ("for")  on  the  assertion  that 
eating  is  not  a  private  and  personal  act,  but  one  regulated  by 
regard  to  the  Lord.    No  Christian  lives  out  of  regard  for  him- 


242  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS     (XIV.  9-11) 

self  alone.  He  has  the  Lord's  honor  and  will  always  in  view. 
He  glorifies  him  even  in  death  (John  xxi.  19).  Living  or 
dying,  then,  we  are  the  Lord's  and  not  our  own  to  make  our 
own  notions  stand,  be  they  broad  or  narrow. 

9»  This  verse  ought  to  read  as  in  some  recent  versions: 
"  For  to  this  end  Christ  died,  and  lived  [again],  that  he  might 
be  Lord  of  both  dead  and  living."  It  preserves  the  corre- 
spondence of  the  words  and  ideas.  It  shows  (''for")  how 
Christ  became  Lord.  He  died  to  redeem  his  people  (i  Cor. 
vi.  19,  20) ;  he  rose  that  he  might  reign.  By  death  and  resur- 
rection he  acquired  Lordship  of  both  the  dead  and  the  living. 
Hence  the  brother  weak  or  the  brother  strong  who  would 
insist  on  his  own  method  of  living  as  the  rule  for  all  strikes  at 
the  very  Lordship  of  Christ.  Scruples  may  be  observed  and 
liberty  enjoyed,  but  let  every  man  beware  how  he  thrusts  them 
in  the  place  given  to  Christ  by  the  cross  and  the  opened  tomb. 
The  resurrection  not  only  gives  life,  but  regulates  living. 

JO*  "  But  why  dost  thou  judge  thy  brother?  "  The  King 
James  version  obscures  the  emphasis.  "But  thou  [the  ab- 
stemious man],  why  dost  thou  judge  thy  [hberal]  brother? 
or  thou  again  [the  liberal  meat-eating  man],  why  dost  thou  set 
at  naught  [treat  with  contempt]  thy  [abstemious]  brother?  " 
These  questions  are  solemnly  pertinent,  because  ("for")  we 
shall  all,  strong  and  weak  alike,  stand  before  the  judgment- 
seat  of  Christ,  or  God,  as  some  read  (2  Cor.  v.  10).  The  right 
and  the  wrong  in  a  brother's  conduct  are  to  be  determined  at 
that  bar  and  not  by  individual  opinion.  In  that  solemn  tri- 
bunal no  man  will  judge  his  own  case,  much  less  his  brother's. 
The  "judgment-seat"  is  that  of  the  great  and  appointed  day 
(Acts  xvii.  31).  As  to  the  matter  of  acceptance,  it  only  con- 
firms ;  but  as  to  conduct,  it  exhibits  and  awards. 

n«  A  solemn  scriptural  (Isa.  xlv.  23)  confirmation  of  the 
"  all "  in  the  preceding  verse.  All  shall  stand  in  judgment, 
for  God  has  sworn  not  only  that  there  shall  be  universal  sub- 


(XIV.  12-14)        MATTERS  OF  CONSCIENCE  243 

mission  to  him,  but  confession  of  his  right  to  judge.  This 
admission  must  be  made  even  by  those  to  whom  the  judgment 
brings  nothing  but  condemnation. 

J 2.  "So  then  every  [each]  one  of  us."  This  is  the  conclu- 
sion drawn  from  the  two  preceding  verses.  The  emphasis  is 
not  on  "  himself  "  and  not  on  "  God,"  but  on  the  words  "  each 
one  of  us."  Godet  gives  the  sense  of  these  three  verses  thus : 
"The  preceding  context  [verse  10]  signifies,  'Judge  not  thy 
brother,  for  God  will  judge  him;  judge  thyself  [verse  12],  for 
God  will  judge  thee:  " 

So  far,  then,  Paul  has  neither  approved  nor  condemned  any 
kind  of  food ;  he  has  neither  given  nor  withheld  his  sanction 
of  sacred  days.  What  a  man  may  do  in  reference  to  both 
food  or  days  is  in  itself  nothing,  but  what  he  may  think  about 
his  own  or  his  brother's  doing  in  these  cases  is  all-important. 
This  is  the  first  point  in  the  chapter. 

But  what  one  does,  though  indifferent  in  itself,  is  sure  to 
provoke  thought  and  feeling.  Hence  Paul's  second  point  (see 
(2)  above)  about  the  right  use  of  liberty.  This  is  addressed 
first  of  all  to  the  strong  brother. 

t3.  "Let  us  not  therefore  [in  view  of  the  fact  of  God's 
judgment]  judge  one  another  any  more."  Such  judgment  is 
doubly  wicked  because  it  anticipates  God's,  and  assumes  his 
place  (ii.  i).  "  But  judge  this  rather."  Note  the  emphatic 
turn  in  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  judge." 

"  That  no  man  put  a  stumbling-block  or  an  occasion  to  fall 
in  his  [a]  brother's  way."  For  Paul's  own  comment  see  i 
Corinthians  viii.  8-13.  In  eating  and  in  drinking  a  man 
must  be  directed  not  by  what  he  thinks,  but  by  the  thought 
his  act  will  provoke  in  the  mind  of  another. 

J4»  All  food  is  clean ;  but  it  is  only  clean  to  him  who  has 
the  enlightening  grace  to  see  it  so.  Many  have  not  this  grace. 
With  Moses'  law  about  clean  and  unclean  meats  ever  before 
them,  and  unable  to  comprehend  the  liberty  in  Christ  Jesus 


244  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS     (XIV.  15,  16) 

(Gal.  V.  i),  many  saints  could  not  say  that  there  is  "nothing 
unclean  in  itself."  Their  inability  was  not  a  moral  defect,  and 
must  not  be  despised. 

J5»  "  Grieved  with  thy  meat."  To-day  the  question  cen- 
ters about  drink.  Even  yet  there  are  Christian  men  who 
practically  insist  on  their  right  to  use  wine.  The  cause  of 
temperance,  as  it  is  called,  has  suffered  irreparably  at  the 
hands  of  its  advocates  because  they  have  been  wiser  than  Paul 
and  based  it  on  other  grounds  than  his.  He  would  surely 
write  to-day  about  wine  what  he  wrote  about  meat:  that, 
while  it  is  not  morally  unclean  in  itself,  except  to  him  who  so 
esteems  it,  yet  he  who  uses  it  is  not  walking  according  to  love 
("  charitably  "),  inasmuch  as  his  use  of  it  is  a  grief  to  many  and 
leads  others  to  fall.  Paul's  plea,  which  is  the  Holy  Spirit's, 
is  unanswerable  and  irresistible.  To  deny  the  liberty  is  to  take 
all  the  virtue  and  force  from  the  abstinence.  To  refuse  to  do 
for  the  good  of  others  what  one  has  a  right  to  do  is  love  of  the 
highest  character— it  is  Christ-like.  But  if  meat  and  drink 
are  in  themselves  morally  evil  there  is  no  virtue  in  abstinence. 
There  is  no  credit  in  refraining  from  that  which  is  sinful;  it 
is  bounden  duty,  not  love. 

"  Destroy  not  him  with  thy  meat  [or  drink],  for  whom  Christ 
died."  The  exercise  of  that  liberty  at  the  table  which  may 
cost  the  soul  of  one  of  Christ's  own  is  characterized  by  him- 
self in  Matthew  xviii.  6. 

J6*  "Let  not  then  your  good  be  evil  spoken  of."  Broad 
views,  clear  perception  of  the  liberty  and  freedom  in  Christ, 
are  a  "  good."  But  he  is  an  enemy  of  freedom  and  of  hberty 
in  the  matter  of  food  who  brings  them  into  disrepute  by  his 
manner  of  living.  Paul  is  an  advocate  of  liberty,  but  only  love 
knows  how  to  indulge  it.  The  address  is  to  the  strong  brethren. 
Meyer  takes  a  different  view.  The  address  is  to  the  whole 
church.  The  "  good  "  is  the  gospel,  which  may  be  despised  by 
the  heathen  if  believers  wrangle  in  such  a  way  over  meat  that 
the  faith  in  Christ  must  seem  to  be  concerned  about  nothing 


(XIV.  17,  i8)         MATTERS  OF  CONSCIENCE  245 

else.     The  reason  for  this  view  is  that  the  discussion  passes 
from  the  singular  in  verse  1 5  to  the  plural  here—"  your  "  good. 

17.  "  For  the  kingdom  of  God."  This  verse  gives  a  sub- 
stantial reason  against  conduct  which  would  lead  to  a  wrong 
view  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  Romans  were  subjects  of 
this  kingdom.  If  they  spend  their  time  and  energy  on  sump- 
tuary questions,  are  they  not  perverting  the  kingdom? 

The  phrase  "  kingdom  of  God  "  occurs  only  here  in  the 
epistle.  God  rules  everywhere,  but  there  is  a  realm  where  he 
governs  by  spiritual  forces  or  laws  alone.  All  who  submit  to 
these  are  in  the  kingdom  and  are  themselves  spiritual  in  char- 
acter (Matt.  V.  3-16).  This  kingdom,  then,  cannot  in  its  es- 
sence be  eating  and  drinking,  which  pertain  to  nature.  The 
kingdom  is  the  product  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (John  iii.  3 ;  xviii. 
36).  It  is  founded  on  the  atoning  sacrifice  of  Christ,  and  in 
its  essence  is  "righteousness  and  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy 
Ghost."  "  Righteousness  "  is  not  merely  moral  rectitude,  but,  as 
Paul  has  used  it  in  the  epistle,  embraces  justification  and  sanc- 
tification,  deliverance  from  the  guilt,  the  power,  and  the  pres- 
ence of  sin.  "  Peace  "  is  peace  with  God  (v.  i) ;  and  the  joy 
is  not  that  which  flows  naturally  from  the  heart,  but  is  awakened 
by  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  that  is  manifesting  these  is  manifest- 
ing the  kingdom  and  showing  men  what  that  kingdom  is.  And 
this  will  bring  together  the  two  views  of  the  "  good  "  given 
above.  Men  will  neither  blaspheme  the  hberty  of  the  king- 
dom nor  the  kingdom  itself  when  it  is  seen  in  the  life  of  those 
really  in  it,  a  life  not  concerned  with  eating  and  drinking,  but 
with  righteousness  and  peace  and  holy  joy. 

J8.  "  For  he  that  in  these  things."  The  Revised  Version 
wrongly  rejects  the  words  "  these  things."  The  verse  confirms 
that  character  of  the  kingdom  which  Paul  has  ascribed  to  it.  It 
must  be  "  righteousness  and  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost," 
for  he  who  serves  Christ  in  these  three  not  only  finds  himself 
"  acceptable  to  God,"  but  also  cuts  off  occasion  for  evil  speak- 
ing on  the  part  of  men  and  is  "  approved  "  by  them. 


246  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS    (XIV.  19-21) 

J9»  An  exhortation.  "The  things  which  make  for  peace" 
and  which  are  to  be  followed  are  the  three  mentioned  in  verse 
17.  There  is  enough  in  these  to  engage  all  hearts  for  all  time, 
and  he  who  gives  himself  to  them  is  in  the  way  to  "  edify  " 
another.  Attention  given  to  minor  morals  has  in  times  past 
distracted  the  church  and  pulled  down  instead  of  building 
up.  To  be  right  in  anything,  one  must  first  be  exactly  right 
with  God  through  Christ. 

20»  "  For  meat  destroy  not  the  work  of  God."  The  word 
"  destroy,"  or  pull  down,  is  the  opposite  of  "  edify,"  or  build 
up.  This  verse  is  an  advance  on  the  fifteenth.  There  it  was 
a  question  of  grieving  the  brother  and  destroying  him ;  here  it 
is  a  malign  work  of  fighting  against  God  in  pulling  down  the 
gracious  work  which  he  has  done  in  the  weak  brother. 

"All  things  [in  the  way  of  food]  indeed  are  pure."  But 
there  is  more  than  this  principle  involved  in  the  question,  and 
this  one  alone  cannot  settle  it ;  for  even  the  pure  food  is  evil 
to  him  who  eats  it  with  offense  of  conscience.  If,  in  imitation 
of  the  strong  brother,  one  partakes  of  food  which  his  con- 
science does  not  allow,  he  has  stumbled ;  his  fellowship  with 
God  is  broken,  and  the  strong  brother  who  led  him  to  this  is 
responsible ;  he  has  destroyed  God's  work. 

2\*  "It  is  good  neither  to  eat  flesh,"  etc.  This  maxim, 
addressed  to  the  strong,  covers  the  whole  matter  in  question. 
It  is  made  the  more  pointed  in  that  it  follows  the  last  verse 
without  the  intervention  of  a  connecting  word.  It  is  a  flash 
of  light.  The  itahc  words  in  the  King  James  version  do  not 
bring  out  the  whole  thought.  It  is  good,  morally  excellent 
and  wholesome,  to  eat  no  flesh,  and  to  drink  no  wine,  and  to 
do  nothing  whereby  thy  brother  stumbles,  or  is  made  to  halt, 
or  is  weak.  The  phrase  "  and  to  do  nothing  "  is  sweeping  and 
embraces  all  matters  of  conscience.  The  King  James  render- 
ing, by  omitting  the  necessary  word  "  do,"  narrows  the  senti- 
ment to  the  single  item  of  drink. 


(XIV.  22, 23)         MATTERS  OF  CONSCIENCE  247 

22*  "  Hast  thou  faith?  "  Have  you  such  confidence  in  the 
justifying  work  of  Christ  that  you  see  your  freedom  in  mat- 
ters of  food  and  drink?  "Have  it  to  thyself  before  God." 
Keep  it  to  yourself ;  do  not  parade  it  in  the  exercise  of  it  in 
eating  and  drinking  and  in  your  treatment  of  the  Sabbath. 
Paul  here  clearly  sanctions  the  broad  and  liberal  view  of  the 
strong  brother.  He  has  tacitly  done  the  same  thing  all  through 
the  chapter.  But  it  is  the  very  man  who  is  sure  of  his  free- 
dom in  these  things  in  Christ,  just  as  it  is  the  man  who  has 
real  wealth  or  real  learning,  that  makes  no  offensive  display. 
And  this  leads  to  the  next  assertion,  "  Happy  is  he  that  con- 
demneth  not  himself,"  etc.  There  is  a  danger  in  this  liberty 
too.  A  man  may  not  be  as  well  grounded  as  he  supposed 
himself  to  be.  He  may  "  allow  "  himself  an  indulgence  for 
which  his  own  conscience  will  afterward  condemn  him.  In  the 
eagerness  to  exhibit  or  indulge  his  liberty  in  matters  which  he 
approves  or  allows,  he  may  subsequently  have  to  sit  in  judgment 
upon  himself  and  pronounce  a  verdict  of  self-condemnation. 

23»  "And  he  that  doubteth  is  damned  if  he  eat."  The 
word  "damned"  is  misleading.  The  man  is  condemned  by 
his  own  conscience.  Mere  hesitation  or  uncertainty  leads  to 
this.  Conscience  must  have  the  benefit  of  every  doubt,  for 
in  all  matters  in  which  the  Bible  is  silent  it  has  God's  authority. 
It  may  not  usurp  the  function  of  his  revealed  will,  but  there 
are  many  things  arising  in  daily  hfe  on  which  God's  mind  has 
not  been  made  known  except  in  a  general  way.  Here  con- 
science must  be  heeded,  or  it  utters  its  condemnation  and  the 
man  passes  under  the  dark  cloud  of  God's  displeasure. 

"  Because  he  eateth  not  of  faith."  Better,  "  It  is  not  of 
faith."  His  act  did  not  flow  from  his  trust  in  Christ ;  he  was 
not  sure  that  his  justification  by  God  permitted  this,  and 
therefore  he  felt  condemned  in  eating. 

Paul  closes  this  second  point  with  the  principle  underlying 
all  Christian  conduct :  "  And  [the  "  for  "  of  the  King  James 


248  THE  EPISTLE    TO   THE  ROMANS         (XIV.  23) 

version  is  ^vrong]  all  that  is  not  of  faith  is  sin."  "All"  is 
better  than  "whatsoever."  Christ  has  certainly  redeemed  the 
behever  from  every  sumptuary  and  ceremonial  observance. 
But  distrust  of  Christ  in  these  matters  binds  the  conscience 
just  so  far  as  the  distrust  extends.    To  violate  this  bond  is  sin. 

It  must  be  carefully  noted  that  Paul  is  not  speaking  here  of 
absence  of  saving  faith,  but  of  defect  in  it.  Hence  this  is  not 
a  general  but  a  Christian  principle.  Paul  is  prescribing  for 
what  is  before  him  in  the  church  and  not  for  mankind. 

This  principle  thus  hmited  is  the  major  premise  of  a  syllo- 
gism :  all  that  is  not  of  faith  is  sin ;  eating  in  doubt  is  not  of 
faith ;  therefore  it  is  sin  and  brings  condemnation.  In  these 
matters  a  man's  conduct  must  be  limited  by  his  faith. 

Jesus  taught  with  sunlight  clearness,  "There  is  nothing 
from  without  a  man,  that  entering  into  him  can  defile  him" 
(Mark  vii.  15).  The  word  "nothing"  is  decidedly  emphatic 
and  embraces  what  is  drunk  as  well  as  what  is  eaten ;  and  the 
weak  in  faith  must  remember  this  before  they  condemn  the 
saints  who  take  the  Hberty  here  given  them. 

On  the  other  hand,  Paul  teaches  that  this  liberty  will  limit 
itself  by  love.  There  has  not  been  a  time  since  he  wrote 
when  it  was  more  necessary  to  heed  this  than  to-day.  For 
now  there  is  abundant  teaching  in  zeal  without  knowledge  that 
contradicts  and  nuUifies  the  principle  laid  down  by  Christ. 
This  false  teaching  binds  without  enhghtening  the  conscience. 
The  result  is  the  weakness  of  a  mere  sense  of  duty  in  this 
matter  in  the  church  instead  of  the  strength  of  the  liberty  in 
Christ  that  may  exhibit  itself  in  love  like  his.  Therefore  all 
the  more  must  the  strong  be  abstinent,  patient,  and  loving. 
Paul  does  not  in  the  least,  as  we  have  seen,  set  at  naught 
Christ's  words  recorded  in  Mark,  but  he  shows  how  they  were 
intended  to  be  used— in  love.  So  used,  they,  like  all  others 
in  the  Book,  are  seen  to  be  uttered  "  not  to  destroy  men's  Hves, 
but  to  save  them  "  (Luke  ix.  56). 


CHAPTER   XV 

DISCUSSION    OF    FRATERNAL    DUTIES    CONCLUDED,   AND 
PERSONAL    MATTERS 

The  argument  of  the  epistle  concludes  at  the  thirteenth  verse 
of  this  chapter.  (See  under  (3)  in  introduction  to  last  chapter.) 
Paul  gives  what  he  has  to  say  about  eating  and  drinking  and 
like  matters  under  three  heads.  The  third  one  is  the  first  ( i ) 
section  of  this  chapter  (verses  1-13),  in  which  Paul  shows  (a) 
that  the  strong  must  act  in  the  spirit  of  Christ,  that  there  may 
be  union  in  worship  (verses  1-6) ;  (/^)  that  they  must  receive  one 
another  in  the  spirit  of  Christ  (verses  7-12) ;  and  {c)  pronounces 
a  benediction  (verse  13).  Christ's  attitude  toward  God  and 
toward  them  indicates  his  will,  which  the  strong  should  follow. 

In  the  second  (2)  section  of  the  chapter  (verses  14-33),  a 
section  entirely  epistolary,  like  that  in  i.  8-15,  Paul  {a)  justi- 
fies his  writing  to  the  Romans  (verses  14-16);  (/^)  gives  his 
rule  in  choosing  his  field  of  labor  (verses  17-21);  (c)  speaks 
of  the  delays  in  visiting  them  (verses  22-29) ;  (^)  but  hopes 
to  come,  and  asks  for  their  prayers  that  the  way  may  be  kept 
clear  (verses  30-33). 

Because  a  few  authorities,  though  from  these  all  the  great 
manuscripts  and  the  Latin  fathers  must  be  excluded,  place  the 
benediction  (xvi.  25-27)  at  the  close  of  chapter  xiv.,  the  higher 
criticism,  beginning  with  Semler,  has  called  these  last  two 
chapters  in  question.  Paul  was  supposed  to  be  the  author  of 
the  whole,  but  originally  these  two  chapters,  the  benediction 
excepted,  were  not  intended  for  Rome.     Baur  was  the  first 

249 


250  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS         (XV.  1-3) 

to  assail  their  Pauline  authorship.  The  difficulties  are  only 
slight  and  have  been  much  magnified.  Meyer,  who  gives  a 
brief  history  of  the  discussion,  concludes:  "This  entire  hy- 
pothesis turns  upon  presuppositions  and  combinations,  which 
are  partly  arbitrary  in  themselves  and  partly  without  any  solid 
ground  or  support  in  the  detailed  exegesis."  So  that  it  may 
be  safely  said  with  Kerr  ("  Introduction  to  New  Testament 
Study  "),  "  Despite  these  objections,  the  integrity  of  the  epistle 
as  it  now  stands  is  certain." 

t,  2.  "  We  that  are  strong."  Paul  places  himself  among 
the  strong.  "  The  infirmities  of  the  weak  "  were  a  burden  to 
be  borne,  a  heavy  weight,  except  where  love  gave  strength 
to  carry  it.  He  does  not  say  that  the  weak  should  reflect  on 
the  load  which  they  are  imposing  on  others ;  for  if  they  had 
the  power  to  reflect  they  would  not  be  weak.  To  eat  meat 
and  to  drink  wine  may  please  the  palate,  but  the  justified  man 
does  not  live  to  please  himself,  but  to  please  his  neighbor.  The 
neighbor  may  be  pleased  to  his  hurt,  so  Paul  adds  that  he  must 
be  pleased  "for  his  good  to  edification."  To  afford  him  rehgious 
pleasure  which  does  not  build  him  up  is  not  for  "his  good." 

3.  "  For  even  Christ  pleased  not  himself."  He  is  not  pre- 
sented as  an  example,  but  his  manner  of  living  affords  an 
argument.  If  it  should  seem  burdensome  and  grievous  to 
some  strong  Roman  to  live  narrowly  for  the  sake  of  the  weak, 
the  consolation  and  the  dignity  of  such  a  life  are  that  Christ 
also  lived  it.  The  phrase  "  for  even  Christ "  would  better  be 
rendered,  "for  Christ  also."  The  Scriptures  are  not  in  the 
habit  of  holding  up  Christ  as  an  example,  for  men  are  neither 
saved  nor  sanctified  by  an  example. 

That  his  Hfe  was  one  of  not  pleasing  himself  is  in  accord 
with  that  which  was  predicted  of  him  in  Psalm  Ixix.  9.  Re- 
proaches  fell  on  Christ  because  he  pleased  not  himself,  but 
lived  to  please  God  in  the  work  of  saving  men.  If  self-pleas- 
ing had  been  the  guide  of  his  Hfe  he  would  have  escaped  the 


(XV.  4-6)     DUTIES  AND  PERSONAL   MATTERS  251 

reproach  and  shame  cast  upon  him  by  the  Jews ;  but  living  as 
he  did  to  please  God,  to  serve  his  will  for  the  salvation  of  men, 
these  reproaches  came,  and  thus  were  God's.  This  was  Christ's 
honor,  and  should  any  one  complain  who  has  the  opportunity 
to  gain  hke  honor  in  denying  himself  for  the  good  of  others  ? 

It  is  startling  to  read  that  "  Christ  pleased  not  himself."  His 
life  was  one  of  pain  and  suffering ;  and  yet  he  spoke  about  his 
"joy "  (John  xv.  1 1).  And  we  feel  that  it  ought  to  have  been 
only  a  delight  to  a  perfect  man,  as  he  was,  to  serve  God.  It 
was.  And  the  solution  of  the  apparent  contradiction  is  that 
in  the  service  of  God  pain  is  only  pleasure,  while  self-pleas- 
ing is  only  pain.  The  Christian  lives  only  when  he  dies,  and 
this  is  the  joy  and  consolation  in  dying  daily  (i  Cor.  xv.  31). 
It  is  only  sorrow  that  can  be  turned  into  joy. 

4^  "  Written  for  our  learning."  This  one  verse,  culled  from 
the  Old  Testament,  moves  Paul  to  say  that  every  part  of  that 
same  Testament  was  written  for  this  purpose,  our  teaching  or 
"learning"  (2  Tim.  iii.  16).  Paul  gives  here  one  chief  object 
of  the  existence  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  abounds  in  in- 
stances of  a  self-denying  life  redounding  to  the  glory  of  God, 
and  thus  stimulates  the  "  patience  "  and  gives  the  enheartening 
or  "  comfort "  which  such  a  life  needs.  The  record  of  these 
instances  is  authoritative  and  so  becomes  a  proof  that  as  God 
dealt  with  his  servants  then  so  will  he  deal  now ;  he  does  not 
change.  It  is  by  means  of  this  "  patience  and  comfort "  de- 
rived from  the  Scriptures  that  settled  hope  arises.  Paul  has 
already  (v.  3,  4)  shown  the  relation  of  patience  and  hope. 

5^  6«  The  apostle  virtually  prays  that  all  parties  in  their  use 
of  the  Scriptures  may  have  granted  to  them  by  God  their 
patience  and  comfort.  These  graces  are,  after  all,  the  gift 
of  God,  but  given  by  him  through  his  Word.  It  is  by  these 
two  Christian  qualities,  also,  that  God  will  make  them  "like- 
minded"  toward  one  another,  a  mind  according  to  Christ's, 
described  above.     This  does  not  mean,  then,  that  they  will 


252  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS         (XV.  7, 8) 

come  to  a  common  view  on  meats  and  wine,  but  to  unanimity 
in  loving  intercourse,  so  that  "  with  one  mind  and  one  mouth  " 
they  may  glorify  God.  They  may  be  divided  in  their  dietary 
views;  this  in  itself  is  a  small  matter;  but  they  must  not  be 
divided  in  their  worship  and  praise  of  God.  For  the  patient 
and  comforted  mind  can  join  in  praise  with  those  from  whom 
there  is  dissent  of  opinion.  This  is  true  Christian  union. 
"  Even  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Translators  are 
divided,  some  rendering  "  and  "  instead  of  "  even,"  making  the 
sentence  read,  "The  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 
In  either  case  Paul's  point  is  the  same.  God  is  to  be  glorified 
not  only  as  God,  but  also  in  his  relation  to  him  through  whom 
all  are  saved,  Jew  and  Gentile,  the  liberal  and  the  narrow  man 
alike. 

7»  "  Wherefore  receive  ye  one  another."  A  deduction  from 
the  desirability  of  union  in  praise.  It  is  not  now  an  exhorta- 
tion to  the  strong  to  bear  with  the  weak  (verse  i),  but  strong 
and  weak  alike  are  addressed.  They  are  to  receive  one  another 
into  fellowship  and  favor,  just  as  Christ  had  taken  them  into 
his.  Some  read  "us,"  others  "you."  Christ  accepts  men, 
whether  broad  or  narrow,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile,  whether 
bond  or  free.  Beyond  a  genuine  belief  of  the  gospel  he  makes 
no  other  demand.  If  he  accepts  men  in  all  their  weaknesses 
and  without  any  regard  to  their  views  about  secondary  matters, 
well  may  we.  "  To  the  glory  of  God  "  might  be  joined  with 
"receive  ye,"  but  may  possibly  go  with  what  just  precedes. 
Christ  received  us  that  God  might  gain  glory.  If  we  do  not 
receive  one  another  his  gracious  purpose  is  marred. 

8.  "  Now  I  say."  The  true  reading  is,  "  For  I  say,"  the 
"for"  introducing  the  long  passage  following  to  show  how 
Christ  received  both  parties.  The  word  "  meat "  and  the  words 
"  strong "  and  "  weak  "  are  not  again  used ;  but  instead  the 
two  nationalities  in  the  church  appear,  the  Jew  and  the  Gentile, 
showing  that  thq  division  in  dietary  matters  ran  in  the  main  be- 


(XV.  9)         DUTIES  AND  PERSONAL  MATTERS  253 

tween  these  two.  The  Jew  would  be  the  weak  man,  the  Gentile 
the  strong ;  but  there  were  doubtless  exceptions  on  both  sides. 

This  conclusion  of  the  whole  argument  is  based  anew  [a) 
on  the  work  of  Christ  in  behalf  of  both  parties,  in  which, 
however,  the  Jew  holds  a  priority,  and  [b)  on  the  Scriptures. 
The  privileges  of  the  Jew  are  seen  in  the  fact  that  Jesus  Christ 
was  himself  circumcised,  and  this  to  fulfil  the  promise  made  to 
the  Jewish  fathers.  The  Gentile  had  no  direct  promise.  The 
Jew's  salvation  came  "  for  the  truth  of  God,"  the  Gentile's  "  for 
his  mercy."  Here  again,  as  in  xi.  17-20,  the  Gentile  is  plainly 
reminded  that  so  far  as  his  nationality  goes  he  has  not  the  same 
foundation  as  the  Jew. 

"Jesus  Christ  was  a  minister  of  the  circumcision."  Omit 
"  the."  "  Circumcision  "  is  not  "  abstract  for  concrete  "  (Boise) 
and  does  not  signify  Israel.  Paul  does  not  mean  that  Jesus 
Christ  was  a  minister,  an  attending  servant,  to  the  Jews,  or 
that  he  belonged  exclusively  to  them.  The  word  has  its  simple 
meaning  in  which  it  stands  for  a  religious  system.  Christ  was 
a  minister  of  circumcision  in  that  he  fulfilled  the  whole  Mosaic 
requirement  in  his  person  and  in  his  work.  It  would  be  Httle 
to  the  point  to  say  here  that  Jesus  served  the  Jews.  It  is 
everything  to  say  that  he  was  the  minister  of  a  covenant  that 
brought  salvation  to  the  Jews  and  through  them  to  all  men. 
Galatians  iv.  4,  5,  is  a  good  comment  on  this  phrase. 

"  For  the  truth  [in  behalf  of  the  veracity]  of  God."  Christ 
was  such  a  minister  of  circumcision  "  to  [or  "  that  he  might "] 
confirm  the  promises  made  unto  the  fathers,"  Abraham,  Isaac, 
and  Jacob.  The  promises  all  lay  within  the  limits  of  the  cove- 
nant of  circumcision  (Gen.  xvii.  7,  14,  21),  and  Christ  came, 
Paul  does  not  say  to  fulfil,  but  to  "  confirm,"  them.  "  Confirm  " 
means  to  make  firm,  to  establish,  to  make  sure ;  and  therefore 
Israel  may  praise  and  glorify  God  for  his  faithfulness. 

9^  "  And  that  the  Gentiles  might  glorify  God  for  [in  behalf 
of]  his  mercy."     Christ's  coming  was  to  the  Jew  in  the  way 


254  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS     (XV.  10-12) 

of  God's  truth,  to  the  Gentile  in  the  way  of  his  mercy.  The 
former  can  praise  for  fidehty,  the  latter  for  grace. 

There  is  a  question  about  the  grammatical  dependence  of 
these  two  verses.  Godet  makes  verse  9  depend  on  "  I  say  " 
in  the  previous  one.  Sanday  connects  the  ninth  verse  with 
Christ's  becoming  a  minister  of  circumcision,  so  that  this  ninth 
verse  gives  a  second  and  subordinate  object  of  that  ministry. 
The  latter  seems  to  be  more  logical,  but  whichever  connection 
is  taken,  the  main  thought  is  clear  that  the  call  of  the  Gentiles, 
as  well  as  the  fulfilment  of  the  promises  to  the  Jews,  both  de- 
pended on  Christ  in  his  ministry  of  circumcision.  It  was  by 
this  ministr}^  that  he  received  us  to  the  glory  of  God,  that  he 
might  be  praised  by  the  Jew  for  his  truth  and  by  the  Gentile 
for  his  mercy.     Jacob  w^orshiped  for  both  (Gen.  xxxii.  10). 

"As  it  is  written."  Four  quotations  follow,  one  from  the 
law,  two  from  the  Psalms,  and  one  from  the  prophets,  in  con- 
firmation of  God's  purpose  that  Gentiles  are  to  glorify  God. 
This  first  one  (Ps.  xviii.  49)  shows  Christ  among  the  heathen 
praising  God.  Of  course  he  gives  the  praise  through  them. 
Therefore  the  quotation  implicitly  declares  the  conversion  of 
those  who  praise. 

J0»  "And  again  he  saith,"  quoting  Deuteronomy  xxxii.  43, 
that  Gentiles  are  to  join  in  praise  with  "  his  people,"  the  Jews. 

t  J.  "  And  again.  Praise  the  Lord  "  (Ps.  cxvii.  i).  This  httle 
psalm  of  but  two  verses  shows  that  God  would  bring  Gentiles 
generally  to  his  worship.  "  All  "  occurs  twice.  "  People  "  is 
plural,  meaning  Gentiles. 

\2*  "And  again,  Esaias  saith  "  (Isa.  xi.  10).  The  Septuagint 
version  is  quoted.  The  prophet  declares  that  he  who  comes 
in  the  Davidic  line,  the  root  from  Jesse,  shall  also  be  King 
over  Gentiles.  "  In  him  shall  the  Gentiles  trust ; "  or  better, 
"  In  him  will  Gentiles  hope."  It  is  significant  that  not  only 
here,  but  in  all  these  four  quotations,  the  article  is  omitted 
before  the  word  "  Gentiles."     The  Gentiles,  all  of  them,  ac- 


(XV.  13-16)     DUTIES  AND  PERSONAL  MATTERS  255 

cording  to  chapter  xi.,  will  one  day  be  brought  to  Christ.  But 
in  Paul's  day  and  to  this  day  only  some  have  come.  If  he 
had  said  "  the  "  Gentiles  the  facts  around  him  would  have  dis- 
proved his  assertion  ;  but  Gentiles  had  come  to  Christ  in  his  day, 
first-fruits  of  the  coming  harvest,  and  he  quotes  in  a  way  to  em- 
brace just  these  first-fruits  and  for  the  present  no  more.  The 
Revised  Version  in  its  translation  of  these  citations  is  not  critical. 

This  last  quotation  shows  the  union  of  Jew  and  Gentile 
under  Christ  in  a  common  hope,  by  which  word  Paul  has  come 
around  again  to  the  idea  of  verse  4 :  "  That  we  through  pa- 
tience and  comfort  of  the  Scriptures  might  have  hope." 

\Z*  "  Now  the  God  of  hope  [the  God  who  has  laid  in  Christ 
the  foundation  for  it]  fill  you  with  all  joy  and  peace  in  believ- 
ing"— the  opposite  of  painful  contention  and  disputing.  In 
the  discussion  Paul  has  had  much  to  say  about  bearing  and  for- 
bearing, about  love  and  service.  He  now  uses  the  word  which 
embraces  because  it  gives  the  source  of  all  these.  All  joy  and 
peace  come  "in  believing."  Paul  longs  for  their  joy  and 
peace,  that  they  "  may  abound  in  hope  [of  eternal  life],  in  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  His  fruits  come  in  clusters  (Gal. 
V.  22,  23),  only  one  of  which  Paul  names — hope.  Strife  drives 
away  the  Holy  Spirit ;  joy  and  peace  detain  him,  and  he  makes 
hope  to  abound. 

Paul  closes  the  argument  with  two  practical  ideas,  praise 
and  hope.  The  two  are  really  but  one— praise.  Every  line 
and  thought  from  the  beginning  of  the  epistle  has  led  up  to 
worship.  "The  harmonious  glorification  of  the  God  and 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  by  the  whole  body  of  the 
redeemed,  as  it  is  the  most  exalted  fruit  of  the  scheme  of  re- 
demption, so  it  is  the  last  end  of  God  in  it." 

J 4- J 6.  In  this  epilogue  Paul,  first  of  all,  in  these  three 
verses  apologizes  for  writing  to  the  Romans.  It  is  not  because 
they  are  not  "  full  of  goodness,"  but  because  they  are.  The 
case  is  not  as  in  Jude  3,  but  more  like  that  in  i  John  ii.  21,  27. 


256  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS     (XV.  17-21; 

He  writes  not  so  much  to  instruct,  as  to  "put  them  in  mind  " 
of  what  they  already  know.  For  Christian  argument  and  ad- 
monition are  of  no  value  except  where  Christianity  already 
holds  sway.  He  thus  writes  because  of  the  apostolic  "grace" 
(i.  5 ;  Eph.  iii.  8)  given  him  by  God  that  he  should  be  a  min- 
ister, a  spiritual  priest,  to  the  Gentiles,  not  to  offer  a  sacrifice 
for  them,  which  was  already  done,  but  to  minister  to  them  the 
gospel,  that  they  themselves  might  be  an  acceptable  "  offering  " 
to  God  (Eph.  V.  26,  27;  2  Cor.  xi.  2).  The  offering  is  ac- 
ceptable because  it  is  sanctified,  made  holy,  by  the  presence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Paul  gave  men  the  gospel,  and  God  gave 
such  of  them  as  believed  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  by  these  two 
means  they  became  a  fit  offering  to  God.  The  Christian  priest 
is  just  a  preacher  of  the  gospel;  for  Paul's  language  on  this 
point  is  highly  figurative. 

J7»  This  verse  forms  the  transition  to  what  the  apostle  has 
to  say  about  his  field  of  labor.  "I  have  therefore  [as  one 
ministering  the  gospel  of  God]  whereof  I  may  glory  in  [not 
"  through  "J  Jesus  Christ "  as  to  things  pertaining  to  God.  This 
glorying  was  worthy.  It  had  its  basis  in  Christ,  and  it  was 
about  God's  affairs,  the  spread  of  the  gospel. 

\Zf  i9*  This  glorying  was  Paul's  own,  as  is  shown  by  the 
somewhat  emphatic  "  I  have."  In  attestation  ("for")  that  it 
is  his,  he  "  dare  "  not  speak  of  what  God  did  not  do  by  him 
to  win  Gentiles  to  obedience ;  but  passing  to  the  positive,  he 
mentions  the  great  works  done  through  him  from  Jerusalem, 
the  starting-point  of  his  ministry,  "  round  about  unto  Illyricum," 
northwest  of  Macedonia.  This  country  is  not  mentioned  in 
Paul's  history  as  given  in  Acts,  but  many  other  events  belong- 
ing to  his  history  find  no  record  there  (2  Cor.  xi.  23-25). 
Through  this  wide  extent,  he  says,  "  I  have  fully  preached  the 
gospel  of  Christ;"  literally,  "I  have  fulfilled  the  gospel  of 
Christ."     Just  how  much  this  means  cannot  easily  be  told. 

20^  2J.  "Yea,  so  have  I  strived,"  or,  "Yea,  making  it  my 


(XV.  22-24)    DUTIES  AND  PERSONAL  MATTERS  257 

ambition  so  to  preach,"  making  it  a  point  of  honor  not  to  go 
where  any  one  had  gone  before  me.  He  considered  that  his 
work  was  to  lay  foundations  (i  Cor.  iii.  lo)  and  to  let  others 
do  the  building.  He  seems  to  have  had  as  a  motto  to  guide 
him  the  Scripture  found  in  Isaiah  Hi.  15,  after  the  Septuagint. 
But  why,  then,  does  he  wish  to  visit  the  Roman  church  already 
founded?  It  is  hard  to  say.  It  may  be  that  the  gospel  was 
never  officially  preached  there  (Acts  xix.  21  ;  xxviii.  22) ;  or  it 
may  be  that,  having  fulfilled  the  gospel  of  Christ,  he  did  not 
consider  his  rule  any  longer  binding.  It  was  not  a  hard  and 
fast  rule.  He  preached  a  year  at  Antioch  in  Syria  after  the 
church  was  unofficially  gathered  (Acts  xi.  25,  26).  And  finally, 
he  was  only  going  to  call  on  the  Romans  on  his  way  to  Spain 
(verse  24),  a  far-distant  new  field.  Paul  interpreted  the  com- 
mission, "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  "  (Mark  xvi. 
15),  to  mean,  for  him  at  least,  not  that  he  should  go  after  some 
one  else  had  opened  the  way  to  the  heathen,  but  that  he  should 
go  first.     He  was  a  pioneer. 

22-24*  "  Much  hindered,"  or  often  hindered  by  abundance 
of  work.  Blessed  hindrance!  But  Paul  had  removed  the 
obstacle  by  doing  all  that  was  to  be  done  "  in  these  parts,"  or 
regions  over  which  he  had  been  traveling  about  fifteen  years. 
He  had  a  "  great  desire  "  to  see  the  Romans.  "  Many  years  " 
is  indefinite.  The  city  lay  on  the  highway  to  Spain,  to  which 
distant  land  he  was  going.  He  hoped  to  see  the  Romans  on 
this  journey,  and  "  to  be  brought  on  the  way  thitherward."  This 
phrase  "  brought  on  the  way,"  or  sent  forward,  refers  to  a  semi- 
official custom  of  the  apostolic  churches  in  furnishing  an  escort 
to  go  some  or  all  of  the  way  with  a  departing  minister  or  mis- 
sionary. Paul  is  here  most  likely  asking  that  one  or  more  of 
the  Roman  brethren  be  sent  with  him  to  Spain.  (See  Acts  xv. 
3 ;  XX.  38 ;  xxi.  5  ;  i  Cor.  xvi.  6,  1 1  ;  2  Cor.  i.  16  ;  Tit.  iii.  13 ; 
3  John  6.)  The  original  word  is  technical  and  is  used  only  in 
reference  to  this  custom. 


258  THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS     (XV.  25-28) 

"If  first  I  be  somewhat  filled  with  your  company."  He 
anticipated  much  spiritual  enjoyment  in  his  visit  to  Rome ;  but 
in  the  word  "somewhat,"  or  "in  a  measure,"  he  intimates 
that  he  may  not  be  able  to  stay  long  enough  to  be  fully  satis- 
fied with  such  blessed  "  company."  We  know  from  the  Book 
of  Acts  how  he  got  to  Rome,  how  eager  the  brethren  were  to 
meet  him  (Acts  xxviii.  15);  but  there  is  no  other  mention  of  the 
church  there,  and  it  is  not  known  whether  he  ever  reached  Spain. 

25-27«  But  Paul  cannot  come  directly  to  the  Roman  breth- 
ren ;  he  has  yet  one  duty  to  perform :  "  to  minister  to  .  .  .  the 
poor  saints  which  are  at  Jerusalem."  The  epistles  to  the  Co- 
rinthians show  how  Paul's  heart  was  set  on  this  contribution. 
Macedonia  did  its  part  (2  Cor.  viii.  1-5) ;  Corinth  had  been 
urged  to  attend  to  the  matter;  Galatia,  not  mentioned  here 
for  some  reason,  contributed  (i  Cor.  xvi.  i).  It  may  be  that 
the  Galatian  funds  had  already  been  forwarded  to  Jerusalem. 

"  It  hath  pleased  them."  This  clause  is  repeated  from  the 
twenty-sixth  verse,  that  Paul  may  show  that  there  is  another 
side  to  this  act  than  mere  benevolent  pleasure.  A  man  is  not 
simply  "  pleased  "  to  pay  what  he  owes ;  it  is  his  "  duty."  This 
contribution  was  a  debt  due  from  the  Gentiles  to  the  Jews 
for  the  reason  here  given.  And  that  debt  is  still  due  these 
same  Jews.  But  for  their  unparalleled  sufferings  in  all  time, 
the  world  would  have  had  no  Bible  and  no  gospel.  The  word 
"  minister  "  is  an  official  word.  It  was  the  Gentiles'  duty  not 
merely  to  give  their  "  carnal  things,"  but  to  minister  as  priests. 
This  gave  the  contribution  a  spiritual  character.  The  word 
"  minister  "  occurs  in  only  two  other  places,  which  shed  Hght 
on  this  act  here  (Acts  xiii.  2  ;  Heb.  x.  11). 

28*  "  When  therefore  I  have  .  .  .  sealed  to  them  this  fruit." 
The  money  contribution  was  the  fruit  of  the  gospel  among  the 
heathen;  it  showed  the  effectiveness  of  that  gospel  (Col.  i. 
5,  6).  To  seal  is  to  authenticate,  to  make  one's  own.  Paul 
would  turn  the  money  over  to  the  Jewish  church  and  thus 


(XV.  29-30     DUTIES  AND  PERSONAL  MATTERS  259 

seal  it  theirs.  This  verse  by  means  of  the  word  "  therefore  " 
resumes  the  topic  of  verse  26  after  the  digression  in  the  verse 
intervening.  He  says,  "  When  I  have  performed  this."  The 
emphasis  is  on  "  this,"  as  if  the  carrying  up  of  the  contribution 
were  the  only  thing  left,  the  final  hindrance  to  his  visit.  The 
word  "  performed  "  is  a  religious  word  akin  to  the  word  "  min- 
ister" just  above  (Phil.  i.  6 ;  Heb.  ix.  6).  "By  you"  is  pos- 
sibly "  by  means  of  you." 

29.  "  And  I  am  sure,"  or,  "  I  know."  The  phrase  "  of  the 
gospel "  is  not  genuine ;  possibly  added  by  some  one  to  make 
Paul's  statement  harmonize  better  with  the  painful  history  of 
his  coming  in  chains  to  Rome.  Paul  did  not  know  when  he 
would  come ;  he  did  not  know  the  suffering  that  would  over- 
take him ;  but  he  was  sure  of  the  condition  of  his  heart.  So 
far  every  true  saint  may  know  his  own  future— that  to  the  end 
he  will  be  attended  with  the  very  "  fullness  of  the  blessing  [or 
"benediction"]  of  Christ."  "The. Lord  is  my  shepherd;  I 
shall  not  want "  (Ps.  xxiii.). 

30^  31  •  "  Now  I  beseech  you,"  or,  "  I  exhort  you."  Paul 
knew  what  Jerusalem  was,  and  he  was  aware  of  the  prejudice 
against  himself.  He  asks  the  Romans  that,  through  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  through  that  love  which  the  Spirit  gives  the 
saints  one  for  another,  they  would  strive— a  word  from  the  gym- 
nastic contests — along  with  him  (i.  9, 10)  in  their  prayers  to  God 
for  him.  They  were  many,  many  miles  from  him,  and  they  could 
not  know  any  day  just  where  he  was  or  under  what  circumstances ; 
but  God  knew,  and  their  prayers  would  be  effective.  And  so 
prayers  for  missionaries  in  foreign  lands  are  offered  to-day, 
while  their  trials  and  needs  are  known  only  in  a  general  way. 

Two  things  are  to  be  prayed  for.  Paul  is  God's  great  apostle 
and  is  doing  his  will,  but  is  not  exempt  on  that  account,  any 
more  than  Christ  was,  from  the  hatred  of  men.  His  fear  is 
twofold:  the  unbehevers  in  Judea  may  seek  to  destroy  him, 
and  the  saints  may  refuse  his  gifts  from  the  heathen.   To  look 


260  TttE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS    (XV.  32,  33) 

at  the  history  of  Paul's  visit  to  Jerusalem  in  its  rough  outward 
aspect,  one  might  say  the  prayers  were  not  answered.  But 
the  rough  handling  which  the  apostle  received  shows  most 
strikingly  how  he  was  delivered,  and  affords  a  useful  lesson  on 
the  way  that  God  answers  prayer.  How  shrewdly  Paul  helped 
himself!  (Acts  xxii.  25;  xxiii.  6;  xxv.  11.)  And  how  came 
it  that  his  nephew  discovered  the  secret  plot  to  slay  his  uncle? 
(Acts  xxiii.  16.)  The  dangers  he  encountered  were  many,  his 
life  was  in  constant  peril,  and  yet  he  was  spared  and  saw 
Rome.  While  the  record  about  the  gift  for  the  saints  is  al- 
most silent,  the  fair  presumption  is  (Acts  xxi.  17-20)  that  it 
was  acceptable.  In  answer  to  the  prayers,  God  did  not  keep 
Paul  out  of  the  dangers,  but  he  preserved  him  in  them.  He 
had  to  enter  the  lions'  den,  but  God  closed  their  mouths. 

32.  "  Come  unto  you  with  joy."  This  must  not  be  hastily 
misread  as  if  Paul  wrote,  "  And  that  I  may  come."  There  is 
no  "and";  otherwise  his  prayer  would  be  threefold.  His 
prayer  was  for  two  things  as  above :  to  be  delivered  at  Jeru- 
salem, and  to  have  his  gift  accepted,  "  that  I  may  come  unto 
you  with  joy."  His  joy  in  coming  was  in  what  was  behind  as 
well  as  in  what  was  before  him.  He  came  to  Rome  a  prisoner ; 
but  who  shall  say  that,  having  escaped  Jerusalem  with  his  Hfe, 
and  having  now  Rome  and  Spain  before  him,  the  latter  for 
evangelization,  he  did  not  come  with  joy  ? 

**  By  the  will  of  God."  This  was  the  main  source  of  Paul's 
hope — the  will  of  God.  "  May  with  you  be  refreshed  "  by  a 
common  interchange  of  faith  and  its  fruits  (i.  12). 

33.  "The  God  of  peace  be  with  you."  In  verse  13  he  was 
called  the  God  of  hope,  here  the  God  of  peace,  not  as  an 
empty  pious  wish.  Paul  had  fears,  but  his  rehance  on  God 
was  such  that  these  did  not  disturb  the  deep  current  of  his 
peace.  The  Romans  would  have  fears  for  him.  May  the 
God  of  peace  save  them  from  pain  in  their  fear. 


CHAPTER   XVI 


LOVE    WITHIN    THE    CHURCH 


The  love  of  the  saints  shows  itself  (i)  in  a  commendation 
(verses  1,2);  (2)  in  sundry  hearty  greetings  (verses  3-16) ;  (3) 
in  a  solicitous  caution  about  false  teachers  (verses  17-20); 
(4)  in  further  greetings  (verses  21-24) ;  (s)  the  doxology  (verses 
25-27).  There  is  no  formal  arrangement,  for  Paul  closes  in 
the  free  and  unstudied  manner  of  an  epistle.  Hence  in  the 
midst  of  his  salutations  he  inserts  the  caution  against  the  false 
teachers,  and  then  resumes  the  salutations.  There  is  no  marked 
logical  connection  unifying  the  chapter. 

Thirty-five  persons  are  named  in  this  conclusion.  These 
names  may  be  classified  as  follows : 


With  Paul: 

At  Rome  : 

Men. 

Women. 

Timothy, 

Aquila, 

Rufus, 

Priscilla, 

Lucius, 

Epsenetus, 

Asyncritus, 

Mary, 

Jason, 

Andronicus, 

Phlegon, 

Junia, 

Sosipater, 

Amplias, 

Hermas, 

Tryphena, 

Tertius, 

Urbane, 

Patrobas, 

Tryphosa, 

Gaius, 

Stachys, 

Hermes, 

Persis, 

Erastus, 

Apelles, 

Philologus, 

Julia. 

Quartus, 

Herodion, 

Nereus, 

Phebe. 

Olympas. 

261 

262  THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS       (XVI.  i,  2) 

Thus  it  is  seen  that  there  were  nine  persons  with  Paul  when 
he  wrote — eight  men  and  one  woman,  Phebe ;  that  there  were 
twenty-four  persons  at  Rome  who  were  greeted — seventeen 
men  and  seven  women.  Besides  these,  there  are  two  house- 
holds in  Rome  that  are  mentioned,  that  of  Aristobulus  and 
that  of  Narcissus.  The  names  of  those  in  the  households  are 
not  given.  There  are  also  some  unnamed  "  brethren  "  referred 
to  in  verse  14.  And  finally  there  are  two  unnamed  women, 
the  "mother"  of  Rufus  (verse  13)  and  the  "sister"  of  Nereus 
(verse  15).  Riddle  says  of  this  list  of  names  that  it  shows 
"  (i)  Paul's  personal  regard;  (2)  the  high  place  he  accords  to 
women;  (3)  the  great  influence  he  exerted,  since  so  many 
friends  were  present  in  a  place  he  had  never  visited ;  (4)  the 
undying  name  received  from  his  friendly  mention  is  a  type  of 
the  eternal  blessing  which  belongs  to  those  whose  names  are 
written  in  the  Lamb's  book  of  hfe." 

The  objection  that  Paul,  after  having  traveled  and  made 
converts  all  over  the  eastern  section  of  the  empire,  could  not 
have  known  so  many  persons  in  Rome,  a  city  that  he  had  not 
visited,  is  not  worthy  of  an  answer.  Did  Paul  write  this  epistle, 
with  all  its  freedom  and  fraternal  spirit,  to  these  Roman  breth- 
ren while  unacquainted  with  them? 

\^  "  Phebe  our  sister."  That  she  was  the  bearer  of  the 
epistle  is  "  a  supposition  which  there  is  nothing  to  contradict  " 
(Meyer).  The  commendation  rests  on  two  grounds:  she  is 
"  our  sister,"  and  she  is  a  "  servant,"  or  deaconess,  of  the  neigh- 
boring church  of  Cenchrea,  nine  miles  from  Corinth,  and  its 
seaport.  The  word  "  our  "  is  indefinite,  giving  but  httle  hint 
of  how  much  it  includes.  (But  see  below  on  verses  8  and  9.) 
She  was  a  servant  not  in,  but  of,  the  church  of  Cenchrea,  hold- 
ing an  official  capacity. 

2»  The  aim  of  the  commendation  was  twofold:  first,  that 
the  Romans  might  "  receive  "  her  in  a  manner  worthy  of  them- 
selves as  saints.    What  lies  back  of  these  earnest  words,  "  that 


(XVI.  3, 4)  LOVE  WITHIN  THE   CHURCH  263 

ye  receive  her  in  the  Lord,  as  becometh  saints"?  Was  it  be- 
cause of  her  relation  to  the  church  at  Cenchrea  as  deaconess 
that  Paul  thus  spoke  ?  Was  it  because  she  was  a  woman 
traveling  alone?  Again,  she  was  commended  that  the  Romans 
might  "assist  her  in  whatsoever  business  she  hath  need  of 
you."  From  the  technical  language  here  employed  many 
have  supposed  that  her  business  at  Rome  was  legal.  Paul 
tells  why  ("  for  ")  she  is  to  be  assisted :  because  she  has  assisted 
many,  even  the  great  apostle  himself.  The  language  is  general. 
How  she  helped  Paul  or  any  one  else  is  not  told ;  but  because 
she  aided  others  she  is  worthy  of  aid.  What  a  charitable  free- 
masonry existed  in  the  church!  Her  "business"  was  her 
own,  but  Paul  does  not  hesitate  to  call  on  the  whole  Roman 
brotherhood  to  stand  by  her  in  it. 

3.  "  Priscilla  and  Aquila,  my  helpers  in  Christ  Jesus."  These 
two  were  not  apostles,  not  prophets,  not  even  called  teachers ; 
just  helpers,  fellow-workers.  Their  tent-making  belonged  to 
their  work  "  in  Christ "  just  as  Paul's  also  did  (Acts  xviii.  3), 
for  their  hands  were  busy  only  that  the  gospel  might  be  spread. 
They  appear  in  the  history  first  at  Corinth  about  the  year 
52  A.D.  (Acts  xviii.  2) ;  they  move  to  Ephesus  two  years  later 
(Acts  xviii.  18,  26;  I  Cor.  xvi.  19);  they  are  now  in  Rome, 
and  at  a  later  date  are  again  in  Ephesus  (2  Tim.  iv.  19).  The 
latter  remark,  however,  depends  on  the  date  assigned  to 
2  Timothy.  It  is  worth  noting  that  in  four  of  the  six  men- 
tions of  the  names  of  this  couple  Priscilla's  stands  first.  The 
order  in  the  King  James  version  (Acts  xviii.  26)  is  not  cor- 
rect. 

4»  "Who  for  my  life  laid  down  their  own  necks"  on  the 
executioner's  block.  Whether  this  means  literally,  the  stroke 
having  been  in  some  way  suspended,  or  whether  they  only 
incurred  imminent  peril  in  Paul's  behalf,  is  not  certain.  In 
some  way  at  the  hazard  of  their  lives  they  saved  Paul's,  and 
so  won  not  only  his  thanks,  but  those  also  of  all  the  Gentile 


264  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS       (XVI.  5-7) 

churches,  whose  apostle  was  thus  spared.  Christ  died  for  them ; 
they  were  ready  to  die  that  his  great  servant  might  hve. 

5»  "  The  church  that  is  in  their  house."  They  had  had  a 
church  in  their  house  at  Ephesus  (i  Cor.  xvi.  19);  Nymphas, 
whoever  he  was,  maintained  a  church  in  his  house  at  Colosse 
(Col.  iv.  15).  (See  also  Philem.  2.)  Paul  had  never  been  at 
Colosse,  but  he  knew  of  Nymphas's  church  just  as  he  knew  of 
this  one  with  Priscilla  and  Aquila.  Paul  was  not  ignorant  of 
details,  but  carried  "  daily  the  care  of  all  the  churches  "  (2  Cor. 
xi.  28).  The  apostolic  churches  in  the  various  cities  do  not 
seem  to  have  had  a  permanent  meeting-place  where  they  could 
come  together  regularly,  but  the  brethren  met  in  groups  in  the 
houses  of  the  brethren  as  here.  Such  a  group  regularly  meet- 
ing was  called  a  "  church."  But  all  behevers  in  any  one  city 
must  have  also  come  together  often  (i  Cor.  v.  4 ;  xi.  20 ;  Acts 
XX.  7,  8). 

*'  Epaenetus,  who  is  the  first-fruits  of  Achaia."  Read  "  Asia  " 
for  "  Achaia,"  not  the  Asia  of  to-day,  but  the  Roman  province 
of  that  time  so  called,  with  Ephesus  as  the  chief  city.  This 
man  by  his  promptness  in  yielding  to  the  gospel,  so  that  he 
was  the  first  to  believe  when  Paul  came  to  Asia,  earned  a 
deathless  honor  in  Christ  and  is  remembered  by  Paul.  The 
apostle  had  not  forgotten  the  heart-thrill  of  joy  he  himself  felt 
when  this  first  convert  accepted  Christ. 

6.  "  Mary."  There  are  six  of  this  name  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. "  Much  labor  on  us  "  ought  to  be  "  much  labor  on 
you."  What  this  woman's  labor  on  the  Romans  was  we  do 
not  know,  except  that  it  was  abundant. 

7.  "  Andronicus  and  Junia."  Brother  and  sister  or  husband 
and  wife.  But  some  read  "Junias,"  a  man's  name,  instead 
of  ''Junia."  They  were  relatives  of  Paul  and  so  Israelites  of 
the  tribe  of  Benjamin.  When  or  where  they  had  been  fellow- 
prisoners  (2  Cor.  xi.  23)  is  unknown.  Paul  was  often  in  prison. 
These  two  were  well  known  by  the  Twelve  in  Judea,  who  held 


(XVI.8-IO)         LOVE   WITHIN    THE   CHURCH  2G5 

them  in  high  esteem.  But  some  think  that  the  word  "  apostles  " 
here  is  to  be  taken  in  the  wider  sense  of  2  Corinthians  viii.  23 
and  Philippians  ii.  25,  where  it  is  rendered  "messengers"  of 
the  churches.  In  the  latter  case  we  must  read  "  Junias,"  and 
understand  that  these  two  were  distinguished  among  the  mes- 
sengers of  the  churches.  Paul  adds  a  fourth  note  about  the 
two :  "  Who  also  were  in  Christ  before  me."  They  were  Paul's 
seniors  in  the  divine  life.  No  doubt  their  prayers  had  been 
again  and  again  offered  for  his  conversion.  This  note,  together 
with  that  about  Epaenetus  in  verse  5,  shows  that  regeneration, 
or  the  state  in  which  one  can  be  said  to  be  "  in  Christ,"  is  a 
matter  of  definite  date.  Between  the  condition  of  condemna- 
tion and  that  of  "not  condemned"  (John  iii.  18)  an  appreci- 
able interval  of  time  is  inconceivable.  It  is  God  that  justifies, 
and  he  does  not  justify  by  a  process,  but  by  a  judicial  sentence. 
If  he  justifies  at  all  he  justifies  "  from  all "  (Acts  xiii.  39).  But 
Paul  in  saying  that  these  were  "  in  Christ "  before  him  must 
be  speaking  objectively.  He  recalls  the  time  when  he,  a  per- 
secutor of  the  saints,  learned  with  bitterness  of  spirit  that  his 
relatives,  Andronicus  and  Junia,  were  "  baptized  into  Christ " 
and  thus  publicly  proclaimed  their  renunciation  of  good  works 
as  a  ground  of  salvation  and  their  acceptance  of  Christ. 

8^  9»  Nothing  is  known  of  these  three  persons,  Amplias, 
Urbane,  and  Stachys,  except  the  record  here  given.  The 
phrase  "in  the  Lord  "  shows  that  Paul's  love  for  Amplias  was 
distinctively  Christian.  He  calls  Urbane  "our  helper  in 
Christ."  As  he  had  just  used  the  singular,  this  plural  "  our  " 
must  include  Paul's  fellow-laborers.  Urbane,  though  not  an 
apostle,  did  apostolic  work.  Hence  note  the  nice  shade  of 
difference  in  changing  from  "  beloved  in  the  Lord  "  to  "  helper 
in  Christ."  The  latter  is  more  specific.  Stachys  is  simply  "  my 
beloved." 

JO^  Apelles  had  stood,  no  doubt,  one  or  more  severe  tests 
of  his  faith,  and  so  can  be  greeted  as  "approved  in  Christ." 


266  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS    (XVI.  11-13) 

(See  on  v.  4.)  He  was  a  tried  believer.  Of  Aristobulus, 
whether  he  was  dead  or  aHve,  a  saint  or  a  sinner,  these  words 
give  no  hint.  It  is  those  belonging  to  his  household,  possibly 
slaves,  who  are  greeted.  If  the  master  was  alive  he  was  not 
in  Christ  or  he  would  have  been  greeted  also.  If  dead  he  may- 
have  been  a  believer. 

\\^  Herodion  was  a  "kinsman"  of  the  apostle.  As  noth- 
ing more  is  said  about  him,  he  may  as  a  believer  have  been 
distinguished  for  nothing  else. 

"  Them  that  be  of  the  household  of  Narcissus."  The  same 
remark  must  be  made  of  this  man  as  of  Aristobulus.  But  a 
note  is  added  about  his  household,  that  they  "  are  in  the  Lord." 
Meyer  despatches  the  phrase  with  one  word,  that  it  is  written 
"redundantly."  How  many  difficulties  might  be  gotten  rid  of 
with  this  word!  But  this  is  not  exegesis.  Paul  does  not  pen 
superfluous  words.  Every  person  named  in  this  chapter  was 
"  in  the  Lord."  Many  of  them  were  something  more.  Those 
in  Narcissus'  household  were  no  more.  The  phrase  gives  the 
ground,  the  only  but  ample  ground,  on  which  they  were  greeted. 

J2*  "Tryphena  and  Tryphosa."  These  two  women,  with 
"  the  beloved  Persis,"  are  hailed  for  their  labor  "  in  the  Lord." 
The  first  two  were  still  engaged  in  it ;  Persis  for  some  reason 
—she  may  have  been  disabled  in  some  way— had  ceased,  for 
note  the  tenses.  Persis  "  labored  much,"  which  may  indicate 
length  of  service.  Observe  that,  while  Paul  in  speaking  of 
men  says  "  my  beloved,"  he  now  delicately  omits  the  pronoun 
before  this  woman's  name.  How  much  did  all  these  women 
contribute  to  the  world-wide  reputation  of  this  church?    (i.  8.) 

\Z*  "Rufus,  .  .  .  his  mother  and  mine."  This  may  be  the 
Rufus  of  Mark  xv.  21.  That  the  evangehst  wrote  his  gospel 
at  Rome  (Col.  iv.  10)  is  generally  admitted.  He  refers  to 
Rufus  as  one  well  known.  Paul  calls  him  "chosen  in  the 
Lord."  But  all  are  chosen,  and  so  the  word  must  have  here 
a  special  sense— distinguished,  excellent.   For  some  tender  ser- 


(XVI.  i4-i6)        LOVE   WITHIN   THE   CHURCH  2G7 

vice  Paul  beautifully  calls  Ruf us's  mother  his  also.  This  service, 
Godet  thinks,  was  rendered  while  Paul  was  a  youth  studying 
in  Jerusalem,  and  that  he  made  his  home  in  this  family.  This 
is  mere  conjecture. 

J4»  The  five  names  mentioned  here,  together  with  "the 
brethren  which  are  with  them,"  indicate  some  kind  of  an  as- 
sociation, possibly  one  of  the  house  churches  again. 

t5«  Here  are  five  persons  more,  two  of  them  women,  "and 
all  the  saints  which  are  with  them."  He  says  "  saints  "  now 
instead  of  "  brethren,"  because  this  term  can  include  both  sexes. 
Is  this  another  house  church,  differing  from  the  last  one  only 
in  embracing  both  men  and  women  ?  The  word  "  with  "  in 
both  verses  implies  an  association.  Paul  knew  of  these.  He 
knew  the  leaders  of  them  by  name  and  salutes  the  rest  in  each 
group  by  the  terms  "  brethren  "  and  "  saints,"  so  that,  with  verse 
5  above,  he  seems  to  greet  every  one  in  the  church  at  Rome. 

16*  "Salute  one  another  with  a  holy  kiss."  The  kiss  in 
that  day,  Hke  hand-shaking  now,  was  a  common  token  of  re- 
spect among  friends  on  meeting.  Jesus  rebuked  the  Pharisee, 
Simon,  for  neglecting  to  kiss  him  (Luke  vii.  45).  Paul  here 
means  that  when  they  receive  the  letter  from  Phebe,  and  come 
together  to  learn  its  contents,  and  have  now  read  these  salu- 
tations, they  shall  greet  one  another  as  brethren  in  Christ  by 
this  token.  To  employ  the  kiss  as  such  a  recognition  makes 
it  "  holy."  This  act  marked  the  reception  of  a  letter  from  an 
apostle.  (See  i  Cor.  xvi.  20;  2  Cor.  xiii.  12  ;  i  Thess.  v.  26; 
I  Pet.  V.  14.)  That  Paul  intended  to  establish  a  permanent 
custom  or  ordinance  of  the  "  holy  kiss  "  is  in  violation  of  the 
context.  The  reception  of  his  letter  and  of  his  greetings  was 
to  be  marked  by  their  greeting  one  another,  just  that  and  no 
more. 

"The  churches  of  Christ  salute  you."  It  ought  to  read, 
"All  the  churches."  Paul  had  just  been  visiting  many  of 
them,  making  known  his  intention  to  go  to  Rome,  and  how 


268  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS    (XVI.  17-19) 

natural  that  these  churches  should  ask  to  be  remembered  to 
the  Roman  brethren !  Paul  conveys  their  greeting  in  the  letter. 
The  "  all "  was  possibly  dropped  by  some  later  copyist  in  the 
supposed  interest  of  truth. 

t7»  "Mark  them  which  cause  divisions  and  offenses,"  or 
occasions  of  stumbling.  Paul  "beseeches"  the  Romans  to 
"  mark  "  these  false  teachers,  that  is,  to  keep  an  eye  on  them. 
They  would  divide  the  church  and  put  stumbling-blocks  in  its 
way  by  their  nonconformity  to  the  "doctrine"  or  teaching 
which  the  Romans  had  formerly  learned,  and  which  Paul  has 
now  confirmed  in  his  letter.  The  Romans  must  have  had  the 
Pauline  type  of  doctrine  from  the  very  first.  The  tense  shows 
that  these  disturbers  of  the  peace  were  at  work  when  Paul 
wrote;  and  what  is  the  remedy  prescribed?  Excommunica- 
tion? Imprisonment?  Torture  of  the  heretics?  No;  simply 
"  avoid  them,"  turn  away  from  them,  freeze  them  out  by  not 
Hstening  to  them. 

tS.  The  reason  for  steadily  refusing  these  men  a  hearing  is 
that  they  are  not  serving  the  Lord,  "but  their  own  belly." 
They  are  making  a  living  by  false  teaching.  False  doctrine 
and  sensuality  often  accompany  each  other,  as  the  first  chapter 
shows. 

These  men  are  bright  speakers,  full  of  pleasing  eloquence, 
and  their  "  good  words  and  fair  speeches  [2  Sam.  xv.  1-6 ; 
Matt.  vii.  15]  deceive  the  hearts  of  the  simple."  For  how 
could  they  talk  so  seraphically  if  not  saints  !  The  "  simple  " 
have  no  shield  against  the  eloquent  tongue  of  the  deceiver 
(Gen.  iii.  i,  4,  5  ;  2  Cor.  xi.  3),  that  speaks  not  from  his  heart, 
but,  as  Paul  suggests,  is  a  ventriloquist.  Therefore  the  church 
must  not  listen  to  these  men,  but  turn  away  from  them. 

19.  "  For  your  obedience  is  come  abroad."  The  "for  "  is 
difficult.  It  introduces  an  antithesis  between  the  "simple" 
and  the  Romans,  who,  Paul  wishes  to  say,  were  not  so,  "  for  " 
they  were  obedient.   The  word  "  simple  "  has  not  a  bad  sense 


(XVI.  20)  LOVE   WITHIN   THE   CHURCH  269 

except  as  it  indicates  a  negative  quality  of  character.  The 
emphasis  of  the  sentence  is  on  the  word  "  your."  I  say  simple, 
and  so  do  not  mean  you,  "  for  your  obedience  is  come  abroad 
unto  all  men,"  and  their  faith  likewise  (i.  8) ;  for  faith  and 
obedience  cannot  be  disjoined.  This  last  chapter  links  in  with 
the  first.  "  Over  you,"  therefore,  I  am  glad,  because  of  your 
obedience.  The  emphasis  is  on  "you,"  showing  anew  the 
antithesis  against  the  simple.  But  while  "glad,"  Paul  urges 
to  wisdom  as  to  "that  which  is  good."  The  seducers  seem 
to  be  wise.  The  shield  against  them  is  the  true  wisdom,  un- 
moved faith  in  the  gospel.  "And  simple  concerning  evil." 
The  word  for  "  simple  "  here  is  not  the  same  as  in  the  last 
verse,  but  means  harmless  (the  word  in  Matt.  x.  i6)  or  free 
from  evil.  "  Be  deep  in  the  wisdom  of  humble  faith ;  be  con- 
tented to  be  unacquainted  with  a  wisdom  which  at  its  root  is 
evil"  (Moule).  For  a  man  need  not  be  evil,  and  needs  no 
personal  experience  in  the  practice  of  it,  to  be  wise  about  it. 
The  pure  life  begotten  of  a  pure  faith  knows  best  what  sin  is. 
Darkness  cannot  reveal  darkness. 

20*  "And  the  God  of  peace."  He  is  so  called  to  show 
how  contrary  to  him  are  those  who  cause  divisions  and  deceive 
the  hearts  of  the  simple.  It  is  the  "  God  of  peace  "  that  shall 
"  bruise  Satan  "  under  their  feet  "  shortly."  This  last  word 
does  not  mean  "soon,"  as  is  clearly  shown  in  Luke  xviii.  8, 
where  it  is  translated  "speedily."  God  will  "bear  long"  with 
his  elect  that  cry  day  and  night  unto  him,  but  avenge  them 
"speedily."  The  long-continued  patience  is  contrasted  with 
the  rapid  course  of  vengeance  when  the  latter  once  begins. 
In  no  instance  of  the  seven  in  the  New  Testament  does  this 
word  mean  "  soon."  In  this  whole  exhortation,  beginning  at 
verse  17,  Paul  has  Genesis  iii.  clearly  in  mind.  He  quotes 
now  the  very  word,  "bruise,"  found  there.  Just  such  false 
teachers  as  these  now  troubling  the  Romans  Paul  calls  else- 
where "ministers"  of  Satan  (2  Cor.  xi.  15).   They  are  the  em- 


270  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS    (XVI.  21-23) 

bodiment  of  his  spirit.  If  the  Romans  will  be  "wise  unto 
that  which  is  good"  and  avoid  these  men,  God  will  bruise 
Satan  in  destroying  the  influence  of  these  emissaries  of  Satan. 
A  church  at  peace  and  in  unity  has  Satan  under  its  feet.  By 
means  of  the  word  "bruise"  from  Genesis  iii.  15,  and  the 
word  "  Satan,"  Paul  flashes  a  double  ray  of  light  on  the  char- 
acter and  inspiration  of  these  seducers  in  Rome  in  a  manner 
as  adroit  as  it  is  vivid. 

An  end  to  the  epistle  is  now  reached,  and  so  Paul  pronounces 
a  benediction. 

2\-2Z*  But  would  this  epistle  be  despatched  to  Rome  with- 
out first  being  read  to  the  church  in  Corinth,  where  it  was 
written?  And  when  so  read  the  Corinthian  hearers  must  have 
their  greetings  subjoined,  first  among  whom  comes  Timothy, 
Paul's  "work-fellow,"  and,  besides  several  others,  another 
kinsman,  the  fourth  one  in  the  chapter. 

The  amanuensis,  Tertius,  who  in  some  quiet  chamber  had 
been  writing  down  what  Paul  dictated,  and  would  not  disturb 
the  apostle  or  add  a  word  of  his  own  there,  now  that  an  end 
is  reached  and  others  are  present  and  giving  their  salutations, 
adds  his  own.     Paul  certainly  did  not  dictate  "  I  Tertius." 

"  Gains,"  in  whose  house  the  letter  was  written,  as  must  be 
supposed,  is  doubtless  the  man  alluded  to  in  i  Corinthians 
i.  14.  He  was  now  Paul's  "host,"  as  Priscilla  and  Aquila  had 
been  some  years  before  (Acts  xviii.  3),  and  the  host  "of  the 
whole  church."  There  is  no  reason  for  diluting  this  statement 
as  some  commentators  do.  The  entire  Christian  assembly  met 
within  this  man's  gates  and  may  have  been  present  when  this 
was  penned.  But  why  do  we  not  read,  "  The  church  of  Cor- 
inth salutes  you  "  ?  Because  their  salutation  is  to  be  found  in 
verse  1 6  above.  A  city  officer,  Erastus,  the  chamberlain,  salutes. 
His  faith  in  Christ  did  not  debar  him  from  a  civic  function. 
The  view  that  a  Christian  cannot  hold  an  office  of  the  state 
wrecks  on  this  passage.    "  And  Quartus  the  [not  "  a  "]  brother." 


(XVI.  24-27)       LOVE   WITHIN   THE   CHURCH  271 

The  Romans  would  especially  appreciate  this  last  salutation, 
for  they  knew  Quartus  and  all  about  him,  as  the  word  "the" 
indicates.     We  are  in  entire  ignorance  of  him. 

24»  The  epistle  having  officially  ended  with  verse  20,  this 
fraternal  postscript  was  appended,  not  being  suitable  earlier, 
and  now  again  a  benediction  is  pronounced.  The  doubt  of 
its  genuineness  (the  Revised  and  many  other  modern  versions 
reject  it)  arose  from  a  failure  to  see  the  structure  of  this  closing 
portion.  As  the  benediction  of  verse  20  closed  the  epistle 
officially,  so  this  one  closes  it  fraternally.  Meyer  skilfully 
defends  it. 

25»  We  may  now  conceive  of  Paul  as  taking  the  pen  from 
the  amanuensis  Tertius,  and  adding  the  doxology  in  his  own 
peculiar  (Gal.  vi.  11,  R.  V.)  hand,  not  only  to  authenticate  the 
epistle  (2  Thess.  iii.  17)  to  the  Romans,  but  also  to  bring  the 
whole  to  a  worthy  and  exalted  close. 

25-27.  "  Now  to  him  that  is  of  power  to  [ejstablish  you." 
Paul  began  the  epistle  with  this  thought  (i.  11).  He  Wrote 
about  his  desire  to  visit  them  and  to  impart  to  them  some 
spiritual  gift,  to  the  end  that  they  might  be  established.  And 
now  he  refers  them  to  God,  who  "  is  able  "  to  do  this. 

"  According  to  my  gospel."  "  According  "  does  not  mean 
either  "  in  "  or  "  by  "  or  "  in  respect  to."  The  word  expresses 
a  correspondence.  When  in  building  a  house  it  is  set  and  es- 
tablished according  to  a  fixed  street  line,  there  is  an  agreement 
between  the  house  and  the  line,  such  a  harmony  that  each 
measures  the  other.  When  the  Romans  became  finally  fixed 
and  settled  in  their  faith  Paul  hoped  to  see  that  faith  in  exact 
parallel  with  his  gospel.  He  has  already  called  the  latter  a 
"form"  or  mold  (vi.  17).  God  is  able  to  put  its  stamp  upon 
their  thinking,  feehng,  and  living,  so  that  in  all  these  there  will 
never  be  any  divergence  from  the  gospel.  A  church  is  "  es- 
tablished "  when  it  reverently  beHeves  and  says  of  everything 
—sin  and  Satan,  Christ,  death  and  life,  the  past  and  the  future 


272  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS    (XVI.  25-27) 

—just  what  the  gospel  reveals  about  these  things.  The  heart 
is  so  unstable,  there  is  so  much  inadequate  and  even  false 
teaching,  and  Satan  is  so  constantly  seeking  to  undermine, 
that  God  alone  is  "  of  power  to  estabhsh  "  so  that  there  be  no 
swerving.  The  Romans  are  joyfully  firm  now,  Paul  knows, 
but  divine  power  alone  can  preserve  them  in  that  firmness. 

"  My  gospel  "—the  gospel  as  I  preach  it.  (See  remarks  on 
ii.  16,  and  compare  2  Thess.  ii.  14;  2  Tim.  ii.  8;  Gal.  ii.  2.) 
There  was  no  conflict  between  Paul's  gospel  and  Peter's,  but 
Paul's  shows  a  much  wider  development. 

"And  the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ."  Subjoined  to  show 
without  fail  what  Paul's  gospel  is  in  its  substance  and  contents. 
It  is  a  proclamation  about  Jesus  Christ. 

"  According  to  the  revelation  of  the  mystery."  The  word 
"  according  "  has  the  same  meaning  as  in  the  first  instance  in 
this  verse.  The  question  here  is  about  the  connection  of  the 
phrase  introduced  by  it,  whether  to  join  it  with  the  verb 
"stablish,"  thus  making  the  two  "  according  "  phrases  parallel, 
or  to  affix  it  to  the  words  "  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ."  Prac- 
tically the  two  connections  come  to  the  same  thing.  The 
preaching  of  Jesus  Christ  accorded  with  the  revelation  by  God 
to  Paul  of  a  "  mystery."  A  mystery  is  a  spiritual  truth  which 
could  not  be  known  to  exist  except  by  direct  revelation.  But 
after  it  is  revealed  it  is  still  called  a  mystery.  Some  part  of 
the  one  alluded  to  here  was  given  in  xi.  25— a  part,  for  the 
Romans  surely  knew  the  whole  as  it  is  given  in  Ephesians  iii. 
3,  6.  The  sum  of  the  mystery  was  the  union  of  Jew  and 
Gentile  on  the  same  level  in  Christ  "  until  the  fullness  of  the 
Gentiles  be  come  in,"  when  the  Jew  should  again  come  to  the 
front  and  receive  his  headship.  The  relation  of  Jew  and 
Gentile  was  the  burning  question  in  the  church  in  Paul's  day. 
Nothing  could  be  settled  till  it  was  settled.  This  question  was 
the  foe  of  stability  and  well-nigh  wrecked  the  churches  of 
Galatia.     And  Paul  knew  the  might  of  the  disturbing  currents 


(XVI.  25-27)        LOVE   IVITHIN   THE    CHURCH  273 

sweeping  around  the  churches,  and  that  nothing  but  God's 
power  could  estabhsh  the  Romans  conformably  with  a  preach- 
ing that  accorded  with  this  mystery,  so  hateful  to  the  zealous 
but  unbelieving  Jew,  who  knew  Moses,  but  had  nothing  but 
hate  for  what  Peter  calls  "the  present  truth"  (2  Pet.  i.  12). 

"Which  was  kept  secret  since  the  world  began."  About 
this  mystery  there  was  a  hush  during  eternal  ages.  The  end 
of  these  silent  times  came  in  Paul's  day.  God  knew  from  all 
eternity  that  Jew  and  Gentile  were  to  be  saved  alike  by  a 
common  faith  in  Christ,  but  he  did  not  reveal  it  till  he  raised 
up  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles  (Gal.  i.  11,  12,  15).  Judaism 
neither  revealed  nor  embodied  this  mystery.  Judaism  was 
quite  subordinate,  and  served  its  own  divinely  given  purpose 
until  God's  plan  for  the  world  should  be  made  known. 

"But  now  is  made  manifest."  The  "now"  is  in  pointed 
contrast  with  the  time  in  which  the  mystery  was  kept  secret, 
"  which  in  other  ages  was  not  made  known  unto  the  sons  of  men, 
as  it  is  now  revealed  unto  his  holy  apostles  and  prophets  by  the 
Spirit"  (Eph.  iii.  5).  The  contrast  here,  as  Colossians  i.  26 
shows,  is  between  the  other  ages  and  "  now."  It  may  be  further 
remarked  on  this  Ephesian  passage  that  the  "  as  "  does  not 
give  a  comparison  between  degrees  of  revelation  in  the  former 
time  and  "  now."  It  denies  that  there  was  any  revelation  at 
all  of  the  mystery  in  that  former  time ;  just  as  if  one  should 
tell  a  man  born  blind  that  the  sun  does  not  shine  in  the  night 
as  it  does  in  daytime.  It  does  not  shine  at  all  by  night. 
Certainly  there  is  no  comparison  by  "  as  "  in  Acts  \\.  1 5  ;  xx.  24. 
"  As  "  with  a  negative  in  the  preceding  clause  has  not  received 
the  attention  which  it  deserves.  It  is  sometimes  almost  equiva- 
lent to  "but"  (i  Cor.  vii.  31). 

It  may  be  remarked  also  on  the  Ephesian  passage  that  it 
is  generally  admitted  that  in  the  phrase  "holy  apostles  and 
prophets  "  Paul  is  referring  exclusively  to  the  New  Testament 
prophets.     Paul  was  both  an  apostle  and  a  prophet, 


274  THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS    (XVI.  25-27) 

"And  by  the  Scriptures  of  the  prophets."  This  very  faulty 
rendering  of  the  King  James  version  is,  strangely  enough, 
followed  in  the  Revised  Version,  but  not  in  some  other  equally 
good  modern  translations,  that  read  "prophetic  writings" 
instead  of  "  Scriptures  of  the  prophets."  In  the  original  there 
is  no  article  with  either  word,  as  there  would  be  if  it  referred 
to  the  Old  Testament ;  nor  is  the  word  rendered  "  prophets  " 
a  noun,  but  an  adjective.  The  commentators  generally  (Godet 
is  an  exception)  make  this  mistranslated  phrase  refer  to  the 
Old  Testament.  But  how  strange  that  Paul  should  say  that 
this  mystery  was  kept  secret  until  his  day,  as  the  commentators 
admit  that  he  does,  and  that  then  he  should  contradict  himself 
by  saying  that  it  was  "  made  known  "  "  by  the  Scriptures  of  the 
prophets  " !  These  prophetic  writings  were  chiefly  Paul's  own. 
He  claims  that  this  mystery  was  made  known  to  him  by  reve- 
lation and  that  he  "  wrote  "  about  it  in  "  few  words  "  (Eph.  iii. 
3).  The  apostles  needed  to  have  their  understandings  opened 
to  understand  the  Scriptures,  but  this  cannot  be  called  a  reve- 
lation. This  mystery  of  the  union  of  Jew  and  Gentile  on  the 
common  level  of  the  church  is  utterly  wanting  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. The  angels  did  not  know  it  (Eph.  iii.  9,  10).  Re- 
peated visions  were  necessary  to  lead  Peter  into  an  acceptance 
of  it  (Acts  X.,  xi.).  The  Old  Testament  bears  witness  to  the 
life,  death,  resurrection,  and  ascension  of  Christ,  as  well  as  to 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  as  Paul  has  been  careful 
all  through  this  epistle  to  show  abundantly.  It  testifies  clearly, 
too,  that  the  Gentiles  are  to  be  saved ;  but  beyond  this,  instead 
of  predicting  that  Judaism  should  for  a  time  be  set  aside,  it 
declares  its  exaltation  in  Christ  in  innumerable  places,  and 
instead  of  foretelling  the  equality  of  Jew  and  Gentile,  it  in- 
variably predicts  the  latter's  subordination  in  the  time  to  come. 
The  expositors  miss  the  meaning  of  this  phrase,  "Scriptures 
of  the  prophets,"  first,  from  faulty  presuppositions ;  secondly, 
from  a  hasty  following  of  the  ancient  commentators,  whom 


(XVI.  25-27)       LOVE   IVITIJIN   THE   CHURCH  275 

they  quote  with  one  consent,  especially  Theodoret  (see  Alford 
and  Ellicott) ;  thirdly,  from  an  inadequate  conception  of  the 
historical  situation  ;  and,  fourthly,  from  not  seeing  the  climactic 
relation  of  this  doxology  to  the  peculiarity  of  the  episde.  As 
no  other  this  epistle  breaks  down  the  barrier  between  Jew  and 
Gentile,  while  admitting  the  "  advantage  "  of  the  former  (iii.). 
Chapters  ix.-xi.  are  peculiar  to  it.  And  Paul  looks  now  to 
God  to  establish  them,  not  in  accord  with  the  Old  Testament, 
but  according  to  this  new  revelation,  "  according  to  my  gospel," 
"according  to  tlie  revelation  of  the  mystery." 

"According  to  the  commandment  of  the  everlasting  God, 
made  known."  The  mystery  of  the  oneness  of  Jew  and  Gen- 
tile in  Christ  was  not  only  manifested  to  the  apostle,  but  made 
known  authoritatively.  There  are  four  qualifying  clauses 
about  the  mystery :  it  was  made  known  {a)  by  means  of  the 
prophetic  writings ;  {b)  because  of  the  command  of  the  ever- 
lasting God  (it  was  Christ  who  commanded  the  gospel  to  be 
preached ;  God  commanded  the  mystery  to  be  made  known, 
significantly  called  the  "  everlasting "  God) ;  {c)  the  aim  in 
making  it  known  is  "the  obedience  of  faith"  (see  on  i.  5); 
{d)  and  the  extent  of  this  knowledge  was  "to  all  nations." 

"To  God  only  wise."  The  translation  of  the  Revised 
Version  is  preferable :  "  To  the  only  wise  God,  through  Jesus 
Christ,  to  whom  be  the  glory  forever.  Amen."  Paul,  with 
no  strict  grammatical  connection  with  what  precedes,  closes 
with  an  adoring  look  upward  in  an  attitude  of  worship.  The 
phrase  "through  Jesus  Christ"  seems  to  go  with  the  word 
"  God,"  who,  through  Jesus  Christ,  is  manifested  as  the  alone, 
as  the  absolutely,  wise.  "  To  whom  [God]  be  the  glory  "— 
the  praise,  worship,  and  honor  for  all  that  is  done  for  men  in 
Christ.  "  To  whom  be  the  glory  forever.  Amen."  Bengel 
adds  :  "  And  let  every  believing  reader  say,  *  Amen.'  "  The 
subscription  of  the  King  James  version,  while  not  genuine,  is 
undoubtedly  correct. 


BS2665 .S855 

The  Epistle  to  the  Romans :  a  commentary 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00069  4739 


